Back to Results

DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00074.png

Source: DOCUMENTCLOUD  •  Size: 319.4 KB  •  OCR Confidence: 94.1%
View Original Image

Extracted Text (OCR)

Case 18-2868, Document 276, 08/09/2019, 2628224, Page25 of 77 The New York Court of Appeals reversed. The risk of admitting such evidence, the court held, is the jury may “charge against defendant a separate, distinct libel (not pleaded in [the] complaint) by someone else, contrary to the rule that [t]he original publisher of a libel is not responsible for its subsequent publication by others.” Geraci, 938 N.E.2d at 921. Accordingly, the court held, “‘[A]bsent a showing that [defendant] approved or participated in some other manner in the activities of the third-party republisher{[,|’ there is no basis for allowing the jury to consider the article containing the republished statement as a measure of plaintiff's damages attributable to defendants.” /d. (emphasis supplied; quoting Karaduman v. Newsday, Inc., 416 N.E.2d 557, 560 (1980)). Neither Ms. Maxwell nor her agents approved or participated in any activity of any media organization in its decision to publish or not to publish any part of the January 2015 statement. EXHIBIT J ¥ 2; K ff 2-3.. Accordingly, “there is no basis for allowing the jury to consider [any] article containing the republished statement as a measure of plaintiff's damages attributable to [Ms. Maxwell],” id. Plaintiff should be barred from introducing any evidence of any republication of the January 2015 statement by any non-party. See, e.g., Soley v. Wasserman, No. 8 CIV. 9262 KMW FM, 2013 WL 3185555, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2013) (precluding plaintiff from adducing evidence intended to establish claim on which court had entered partial summary judgment). Il. Summary judgment is warranted under the New York Constitution. A. The January 2015 statement constitutes nonactionable opinion. “Whether particular words are defamatory presents a legal question to be resolved by the court in the first instance.’” Germain v. M & T Bank Corp., 111 F. Supp. 3d 506, 534 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (brackets omitted; quoting Celle v. Filipino Reporter Enters. Inc., 209 F.3d 163, 18

Document Preview

DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00074.png

Click to view full size

Extracted Information

Dates

Document Details

Filename DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00074.png
File Size 319.4 KB
OCR Confidence 94.1%
Has Readable Text Yes
Text Length 2,018 characters
Indexed 2026-02-04 12:22:24.002381