DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00093.png

Case 18-2868, Document 276, 08/09/2019, 2628224, Page44 of 77 potential defendants in an action by Ms. Maxwell for defamation. See EXHIBIT K 4 26-30. Nothing about the statement on its face suggested bullying, harassing or intimidating the press- recipients (or anyone else). At the time Mr. Barden directed the issuance of the statement, he had sufficient factual and legal grounds to pursue in good faith a defamation action against one or more of the press-recipients for republishing plaintiff's allegations. See generally id. 4 8-30. That the statement was directed at the press-recipients—which had republished plaintiff's false allegations and was not directed at plaintiff—is irrelevant to the absolute privilege protecting pre-litigation communications. In /nternational Publishing Concepts, LLC v. Locatelli, letters and emails detailing likely litigation and an intent to sue were extended the same pre-litigation privilege although sent to two non-parties who were only potentially affected by the litigation or witnesses to it. See also Kirk, 532 F. Supp. 2d at 593 (“The privilege is broad, and embraces anything that may possibly or plausibly be relevant to the litigation.”) (internal quotations omitted). The only issue remaining is whether the statement was pertinent to the contemplated litigation. Applying the “extremely liberal” test of pertinence, in which “any doubts are to be »?9 the court must decide whether the allegedly defamatory resolved in favor of pertinence, statement is “outrageously out of context” in relation to the contemplated litigation. Flomenhaft, 8 N.Y.S.3d at 164-65 (internal quotations omitted). Nothing in the statement is “outrageously out of context.” Every statement was directly related to the press-recipients’ republication of plaintiffs false allegations against Ms. Maxwell. The January 4 statement also is absolutely privileged. According to plaintiff, Ms. Maxwell told a reporter on that date when asked to comment on plaintiffs joinder-motion > Flomenhaft, 8 N.Y .S.3d at 164 (internal quotations omitted). 37