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. 

[Janiece Young]

Well, if it has to do with land, could it be "plat" matters as in a plat of ground?

[Rosalie DeLeonardis]

Re-plan??? 

 

[Debbie Taggart]

I'm probably too late for the party here, but I hear:  ...no, nothing to redact for the revelation of substantive agreed plant matters. 

[Alice Clark]

This is actually not even phonetically close.  I haven't heard back from the Judge, but emailed one of the attorneys just in case I didn't get an answer from him.   This makes much more sense even though I don't hear it (I would use the acronym for hitting my head on my desk if there was one).  I am so happy that I don't have to transcribe tapes because telephonic hearings are almost the same:

It should be subject to redaction for the revelation of attorney-client privileged matters, and I’m also…

[Quyen]

NO . . . WAY. He's WRONG.  Unless he's actually the attorney who said it. Not in a milllion years.  Even if he is the attorney who said it, it doesn't sound anything like what he said it's supposed to be. But, hey . . . if I were you, at this point, I'd be beyond the point of caring.

[Mary Ann Payonk]

Agree wholeheartedly, Quyen.

M.A.

[Alice Clark]

It's just funny the way people hear what they expect to hear.  That's not what the Judge said, but it could be what he was thinking he said and could have been what the attorneys heard because it was what they would expect him to say.  If I hear from him, I'll add one last postscript here.

[Janiece Young]

I do not think it sounds like what he suggests at all.

[Rhonda Hall Breuwet, RDR CRR CLR]

I do hear "revelation of -- subject to the attorney-client matters."  Don't hear the "privileged" in there, though.