Former Deutsche Bank vice president Emily Pereless, testifying for the defense, appeared reluctant to offer details about the process of reviewing Donald Trump's bank and brokerage statements between 2011 and 2014.

Pereless physically reviewed Trump's bank and brokerage statements with a colleague, according to documents shown at trial, and signed Deutsche Bank credit reports. Despite being called as a defense witness, she struggled to recall any details about the process and appeared uncooperative on the witness stand.

"I analyzed and compiled the information provided," Pereless testified about a 2014 credit report, saying could not recall the specific steps she took in detail.

Defense attorney Jesus Suarez attempted to refresh her recollection by showing her a document titled "DT Due Diligence Items" that listed steps that included reviewing Trump's personal tax reports, understanding ownership structures for assets, and learning of Trump's financial commitments.

Pereless still said she could not recall specific steps cited in the document, and even struggled to confirm who the aforementioned "DT" was.

"I am assuming it means Donald Trump, but I don't recall specifically," Pereless said.

Trump's attorneys said they planned to shorten their remaining direct examination when Pereless returns to the stand tomorrow.

Defense attorney Christopher Kise requested Judge Engoron issue a directed verdict at the conclusion of testimony from Deutsche Bank managing director Dave Williams -- marking the third time the defense has asked the judge to stop the proceedings and decide the case in their favor.

"Was an event of default ever declared by Deutsche Bank on the loans to the Trump Organization?" defense attorney Jesus Suarez asked Williams at the end of Williams' testimony.

"No," Williams replied, prompting Kise to jump up and make his request.

"This witness has again testified the bank conducted its own due diligence" and was not defrauded by Trump's statements of financial condition, Kise argued.

"This is a subjective exercise. There isn't a right answer. There isn't an 'Ah-ha, you picked the wrong number,'" Kise said. "The bank is in a relationship whose job it is to make these determinations. It's not the attorney general's job to insert herself into a private transaction ten years later."

Judge Engoron took the defense's motion under advisement but signaled he was unmoved.

"The mere fact that the lenders were happy doesn't mean the statute wasn't violated," Engoron said.

Kevin Wallace, an attorney for the state, took issue with Kise's analysis of the testimony.

"The witness did not say none of this matters. The witness said he expects clients to tell the truth," Wallace said.

Deutsche Bank did its own due diligence to estimate Trump's net worth, landing on a figure that differed from Trump's reported net worth by over $2 billion -- but the difference didn't concern the bank, according to testimony from managing director Dave Williams.

Trump reported a net worth of nearly $5 billion in 2013, according to documents shown at trial. The bank's own Valuation Services Group produced an estimate of only $2.6 billion, a difference that Williams described as "not unusual or atypical."

"My reaction was probably pretty measured," Williams said about learning that the bank determined that Trump's net worth was nearly half the estimate provided by Trump. "We are expected to conduct due diligence and verify information to the extent that is possible."

Even with Deutsche Bank's lower estimate, the former president easily met the bank’s $100 million net-worth requirement for high-net-worth individuals, according to Williams.

“He reported both a net worth and investable assets well in excess of our minimum requirements,” Williams said, confirming that the bank set the interest rate for Trump’s commercial loans between 2%-2.5%.

The testimony also appeared to bolster Trump's arguments that his lenders did their own due diligence, diminishing the importance of his statements of financial condition that are at the center of the case.

Deutsche Bank managing director Dave Williams downplayed the possibility that Donald Trump could have defaulted on the net-worth covenants included in his loans.

While both parties agree that Trump never defaulted on his loans, New York Attorney General Letitia James alleges that had Trump accurately reported the value of his assets, he could have risked defaulting on a loan covenant that required he maintain a net worth of $2.5 billion.

Defense attorney Jesus Suarez pushed back on that allegation by asking Williams about the severity of a covenant default -- i.e., breaching the terms of the loan -- compared to a payment default triggered by a missed payment.

"Generally speaking, a payment default is a more material default than a covenant default," Williams said. "It speaks definitively to the repayment of the loan."

Williams described a loan covenant as a "guardrail," and suggested that breaching the covenant would have brought Trump back to the negotiating table to adjust the loan terms.

Williams also reiterated that he was not aware of any loan or covenant defaults by Trump.

James is expected to request a fine of nearly $400 million for Trump's allegedly ill-gotten gains, including over $140 million based on the potential interest she says was lost by Deutsche Bank. By proving that the loan agreements were lawful, Trump's lawyers could significantly lower the fine Trump faces.