This case is JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association v Caliguri. The month and year that this case was written is November 17, 2020. In the best way that I can understand this case is between a bank and a loan service. Based on my assumptions there was a form of miscommunication because apparently there was an open case prior. And because there was a case and it’s now close there some documents missing for this new case at hand and now the judges are trying to understand why they can’t have the original notes needed for this case and Mr Herzberg who is Caliguri’s lawyer is explaining how he was told that it wasn’t needed from the case prior but the judges are now trying to make him understand that it’s needed now because not only does he not have the original notes but it also seems like he doesn’t have any evidence to defend his case. And the judges are trying to make him understand that what happened in the case prior is not the same thing that will happen in this case because this is two different things.

What I found interesting is that as an attorney you should know that you will always need evidence and that it’s best that the sources and notes that you bring are original because it makes the case go smoother because the judges like to go straight to the point. The only thing that I wished is that the Judges gave Mr Herzberg the opportunity to speak  because you can never get the information that you need if you keep on cutting the person off while they speak. Not that i’m entirely agreeing with what Mr Herzberg did. I Liked Mr Schoenfeld’s presentation because he presented himself well and gave evidence at the spot.