DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00068.png

Case 18-2868, Document 276, 08/09/2019, 2628224, Page19 of 77 whether there is a genuine issue for trial, and “there is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Jd. “[T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment . . . against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). In such a situation, “there can be ‘no genuine issue as to any material fact,’ since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. The moving party is ‘entitled to a judgment as a matter of law’ because the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.” Jd. at 323; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 advisory committee’s notes (2010 amendments) (restoration of “shall grant summary judgment” was intended to “express the direction to grant summary judgment, and “avoids the unintended consequences of any other word”). ARGUMENT I. Ms. Maxwell is not liable for republications of her January 2015 statement that she did not authorize or request and by entities she did not control. A. Summary judgment is warranted to the extent plaintiff seeks to impose liability on any media’s republication of all or a portion of the January 2015 statement. Messrs. Barden and Gow, acting on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, caused the January 2015 statement to be transmitted—published—to various individuals employed by media organizations. The question presented in this Argument I is whether Ms. Maxwell is liable for any republication of all or a portion of the January 2015 statement by the media. Under New York law, the answer is no. Liability for a republication “must be based on real authority to influence the final product.” Davis v. Costa-Gavras, 580 F. Supp. 1082, 1096 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (emphasis supplied). 12