DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00088.png

Case 18-2868, Document 276, 08/09/2019, 2628224, Page39 of 77 Doc.37 at 7 (quoting Davis, 22 N.E.3d at 1005). To answer that inquiry, the Court applied the three factors enumerated in Davis. See id. These three factors are the same as the four factors in Immuno AG; the difference is that the Davis court collapsed the Immuno AG’s third and fourth factors into one. See Davis, 22 N.E.3d at 1005. As framed by the Davis court, the third factor is “whether either the full context of the communication in which the statement appears or the broader social context and surrounding circumstances are such as to signal . . . readers or listeners that what is being read or heard is likely to be opinion, not fact.” /d. (internal quotations omitted; emphasis supplied), quoted in Doc.37 at 7. Although this Court did not note this in its opinion, this third factor “is often the key consideration in categorizing a statement as fact or opinion.” /d. at 1006 (emphasis supplied). As in Davis, which also was decided on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion,” this Court when considering the third factor did not have the benefit of any of the evidence presented in this motion. That is to say, the Court did not have the “full context of the” July 2015 statement or the “broader social context and surrounding circumstances” of the statement, since none of the evidence presented in this Motion was pleaded in the Complaint. Nor, in the context of the 12(b)(6) motion, did the Court consider that the relevant 9924 “readers” of the July 2015 statement were not the “average reader” in the general public, but a “cynical” and “sophisticated””° group of about 30 reporters and journalists who were knowledgeable about plaintiffs allegations of being the victim of sexual abuse and sexual Davis, 22 N.E.3d at 1001. >4 Aronson, 483 N.E.2d at 1139. *>Steven Shiffrin, The Politics of the Mass Media and the Free Speech Principle, 69 Ind. L.J. 689, 702 (1994). 6D ibella, 2002 WL 31427362, at *2. 32