DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00789.png

Case 18-2868, Document 279, 08/09/2019, 2628231, Page7 of 37 ARGUMENT I. Ms. Maxwell is not liable for republications of the January 2015 statement. Under black letter New York law, liability for republication of an allegedly defamatory statement “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). “[W]here a defendant ‘had no actual part in composing or publishing,’ he cannot be held liable.” Jd. (citing Folwell v. Miller, 145 F. 495, 497 (2d Cir. 1906)); accord Geraci v. Probst, 938 N.E.2d 917, 921 (N.Y. 2010). “[CJonclusive evidence of lack of actual authority [is] sufficiently dispositive that the [trial court] ‘ha[s] no option but to dismiss the case ....’” Id. (emphasis supplied; quoting Rinaldi v. Viking Penguin, Inc., 420 N.E.2d 377, 382 (N.Y. 1981)). It is undisputed Ms. Maxwell and her agents had no ability to control and did not control whether or how the media-recipients would use the statement. Doc. 542-7, Ex.J Jf 2-3; id., Ex.K 4 24. Unsurprisingly, plaintiff has offered no evidence of such control. A fortiori this Court “ha[s] no option but to dismiss the case,” id. (internal quotations omitted), to the extent it is founded upon the media’s republication of the statement. A. Plaintiff’s argument against summary judgment is substantially groundless. A legal argument is frivolous if it is presented contrary to a “long line of authorities” and the “fundamental principles”! of the underlying substantive law. Plaintiff Giuffre’s argument opposing summary judgment as to republication is frivolous. The New York Court of Appeals in Geraci followed a long line of New York cases holding that a defamation defendant is not liable for republication of his allegedly defamatory statement unless he had “actual authority” to control the decision to republish: “Our "Porky Prods. v. Nippon Exp. U.S.A., | F.Supp.2d 227, 234 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), aff'd, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998).