DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00790.png

Case 18-2868, Document 279, 08/09/2019, 2628231, Page8 of 37 republication liability standard has been consistent for more than one hundred years.” See Geraci, 938 N.E.2d at 921 (footnote omitted). Indeed, the Geraci court observed, the New York Court of Appeals in Schoepflin v. Coffey,” a case decided in 1900, held: “Tt is too well settled to be now questioned that one who . . . prints and publishes a libel[] is not responsible for its voluntary and unjustifiable repetition, without his authority or request, by others over whom he has no control and who thereby make themselves liable to the person injured, and that such repetition cannot be considered in law a necessary, natural and probable consequence of the original slander or libel.” 938 N.E.2d at 921 (emphasis supplied; quoting Schoepflin, 56 N.E. at 504). The cases in which this Court and its sister courts in this Circuit assiduously have followed this line of New York cases are legion.* The Second Circuit was in the vanguard." °56 N.E. 502 (N.Y. 1900). >See Egiazaryan v. Zalmayev, 880 F. Supp. 2d 494, 501 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (“[t]he original publisher is not liable for republication where he had ‘nothing to do with the decision to [republish] and [he] had no control over it.””) (quoting Rinaldi v. Viking Penguin, Inc., 425 N.Y.S.2d 101, 104 (1 Dep’t 1980), aff'd, 420 N.E.2d 377 (N.Y. 1981)); Egiazaryan v. Zalmayev, No. 11 CIV. 2670 PKC, 2011 WL 6097136, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2011) (same); Davis v. Costa-Gavras, 595 F. Supp. 982, 988 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) (“Under New York law, liability for a subsequent republication must be based on real authority to influence the final product, not upon evidence of acquiescence or peripheral involvement in the republication process.”); Davis, 580 F. Supp. at 1094 (original publisher not liable for injuries caused by the republication “‘absent a showing that they approved or participated in some other manner in the activities of the third party republisher’”) (quoting Karaduman v. Newsday, Inc., 416 N.E.2d 557, 560 (N.Y. 1980)); Croy v. A.O. Fox Mem’l Hosp., 68 F. Supp. 2d 136, 144 (N.D.N.Y. 1999) (“The original author of a document may not be held personally liable for injuries arising from its subsequent republication absent a showing that the original author approved or participated in some other manner in the activities of the third-party republisher.”) (citations omitted); Cerasani v. Sony Corp., 991 F. Supp. 343, 351 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (“a libel plaintiff must allege that the party had authority or control over, or somehow ratified or approved, the republication”). 4See Folwell v. Miller, 145 F. 495, 497 (2d Cir. 1906) (affirming directed verdict in favor of managing editor: “when it appears affirmatively that he was not on duty [upon receipt of libelous matter and its republication], and could not have had any actual part in composing or publishing, we think he cannot be held liable without disregarding the settled rule of law by which no man is bound for the tortious act of another over whom he has not a master’s power of control”) (emphasis supplied), quoted with approval in Davis I, 580 F. Supp. at 1096; Cerasani, 991 F. Supp. at 351.