Can you understand this?

[Alice Clark]

I did a telephone conference today with two attorneys and the court (all by telephone) and had this one phrase I did not understand.  I am going to try an experiment and post the audio.  I haven't done that before.  I made this audio clip by using the iTalk app on my iPhone.  My computer uses Windows Media Player to play it, although I was not familiar with the format. 

... "and I think it now is incumbent upon the defendants to produce the specific bills subject to redaction for the revelation of ??? matters"

What.aiff. 

This was over a telephone speaker, and this retired judge challenges my auditory processing when he's in the room with me, let alone over the phone. 

[Marge Teilhaber (TILE hobber)]

Not a clue.  You've now got the clip.  Email it to the speaker.   There's no way I could  make sense of that.

[Alice Clark]

Thanks, Marge ~ I probably will end up doing that.  I do like how easy this was to make a small audio file.

[Janiece Young]

bills subject to redacting for the revelation of agreed "plan" matters and I'm also

I'm not sure if he is saying "plan" or "plant" or could it be agreed "upon"?

[Quyen]

"subspecific re plan/plant matters"???

What was the subject of the hearing?

[Mary Ann Payonk]

What I hear makes no sense:  "No, nothing to redaction for the revelation of subspecific green plant matters, and I'm also --"

M.A.

[Alice Clark]

Combining Janiece, Quyen's and yours and one other person not on this board, that's what I do hear, "subspecific creek plant matters."  But it unfortunately doesn't make sense with anything I heard while reporting several days of trial a year ago which had to do with large parcels of land, option agreements, mitigation use, rights of first option, etc.  This short hearing was just about a ruling on attorney fees being paid by one of the parties and the other party's need to submit some backup to the court.  I think I'm going to send it to the judge with that and the audio clip.  I'll report back if he gets back to me, and if not, that's what it will say.

[Stefanie Landa]

possibly:

Bills subject to redaction for the relevance of sub -- specifically plant matters.

[Alice Clark]

I'll let you know when I hear back... because there is no "plant" involved in the sense of a business that I know of.

[Quyen]

Another guess: "subspecifically plant matters"

I dunno. I'm hearing "plant" pretty clearly.

Keep in mind that "plant" is not just leafy green stuff with roots that grow out of the ground, but it could also include buildings/machinery/factories, etc. So could they be talking about factories/buildings, future land-use plans?

[Alice Clark]

It would involve attorney fees for a service that should be sorted out of the fees that are going to be charged to the other party for the defense of this lawsuit.  I think this was tracts of land that developers would buy to use to satisfy mitigation requirements on other land they were developing, so I wondered if they took out riparian habitat in one of their developments if they were looking at whether any creek aspect to this property could mitigate for that and whether they had an attorney look into that but couldn't charge the plaintiff for those activities.  That was the only thing I could come up with that would make this make any kind of sense.  It will probably turn out to be something completely different.

[Quyen]

I think it would kind of make sense if their development ripped out plant habitation near the creek.

[Rachel Gard]

Could it possibly be subject to redaction for the revelation of the substantive replat matters?  Boy, that's a tough one.  I keep thinking I'm hearing substantive, though.