non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO —
Epstein Suite indexes the text; the original document lives at its official source. We don't host the original file — view it on the official release to read it in full.
View the original on the official releaseDocument text
Text is machine OCR and may contain errors. Confirm against the original source above.
Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =|
NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S|
non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO —
19
A. The footnote -- one of the problems with the
the Word processing program to drop a star footnote is
it requires, under the word programing, you have to to
have different sections in the document because
otherwise it would be footnote -- let's see.
Yes, so there was already a footnote 1 on the
joinder motion and so, what happens with footnotes is if
you identify it as footnote, put in a footnote where the
University of Utah signature block is, for example, it
becomes footnote 2, so then you have to create a
different section and then once you have a different
section you can establish a new number and a new
nomenclature instead of numbers. You can have the
asterisk, and so somehow with the signature block
getting reprocessed here, that star footnote dropped off
and within I think -- I think it was about three days, I
realized that the star footnote had dropped off, so I
filed a corrected pleading with the -- with the new star
footnote on it.
Q. You would agree with me that a fair-minded, a
reasonable reader looking at the signature block on the
as filed original document, could conclude that the
University of Utah was somehow endorsing or standing
behind this pleading?
A. I don't think that's quite fair. I think the
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021842
Have a question about what this document contains?
Ask the documents