Back to Results

DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00106.png

Source: DOCUMENTCLOUD  •  Size: 310.3 KB  •  OCR Confidence: 94.9%
View Original Image

Extracted Text (OCR)

Case 18-2868, Document 276, 08/09/2019, 2628224, Page57 of 77 may still be public figures with respect to a particular controversy.” Contemporary Mission, Inc. v. N.Y. Times Co., 842 F.2d 612, 617 (2d Cir. 1988). As the Second Circuit has observed, the reason for distinguishing between private and public figures in defamation claims flows from the recognition of two things: First, “that private figure are more vulnerable to injury from defamation, because public figures have greater access to the media and thus are in a better position to contradict a lie or correct an error.” Contemporary Mission, Inc., 842 F.2d at 619-20. Second, “and more important, public figures generally ‘have voluntarily exposed themselves to increased risk of injury from defamatory falsehood concerning them.’” /d. at 620 (quoting N.Y. Times, 418 U.S. at 344-45) (emphasis added). In the Second Circuit, to establish that a plaintiff is a limited purpose public figure, a defendant must prove that she: 1. successfully invited public attention to [her] views in an effort to influence others prior to the incident that is the subject of litigation; 2. voluntarily injected [her]self into a public controversy related to the subject of the litigation; assumed a position of prominence in the public controversy; and 4. maintained regular and continuing access to the media. Lerman, 745 F.2d at 136-37; accord, Contemporary Mission, Inc., 842 F.2d at 617; Biro, 963 F. Supp. 2d at 270. Statements regarding a limited purpose public figure are subject to enhanced protection only if relevant to the public figure's involvement in a given controversy. Biro, 963 F. Supp.2d at 270-71 (citing Faigin v. Kelly, 978 F. Supp. 420, 426 (D. N.H. 1997)). “Yet, once a plaintiff is deemed a limited purpose public figure, courts allow the heightened protections to sweep broadly, covering all statements by defendants that are not ‘wholly unrelated to the controversy.’” Biro, 963 F. Supp. 2d at 271 (quoting Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publ'ns, Inc., 626 50

Document Preview

DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00106.png

Click to view full size

Extracted Information

Dates

Document Details

Filename DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00106.png
File Size 310.3 KB
OCR Confidence 94.9%
Has Readable Text Yes
Text Length 2,033 characters
Indexed 2026-02-04 12:22:35.400194