DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00791.png

Case 18-2868, Document 279, 08/09/2019, 2628231, Page9 of 37 In the face of this uninterrupted line of New York state (and federal) cases dating back to the nineteenth century powerfully establishing a bright line rule regarding republication liability, plaintiff Giuffre manages what amounts to a—frivolous—murmur of opposition. She claims there are “[t]wo standards” in New York law: one “older,” and one “more modern.” Resp. 28. The “older” standard, plaintiff says, is represented by the legion of cases we have cited. The “more modern formulation”—where can it be found? Why, in one place: a treatise on defamation. /d. (citing Sack on Defamation § 2.7.2, at 2-113 to -114 (4" ed. 2016)). It surely is frivolous to argue that a treatise creates a republication-liability standard that is separate from, “more modern” than, and supersedes the New York Court of Appeals’ 2010 decision in Geraci and this Court’s 2012 decision in Egiazaryan. Trying to build on this start, plaintiff argues, “New York appellate courts have repeatedly held than an individual is liable for the media publishing that individual’s defamatory press release.” Resp. 28 (emphasis supplied). Even if we accept plaintiff's mischaracterization of the January 2015 statement as a “press release,” her argument still would be meritless. To begin with, when plaintiff says the New York appellate courts have “repeatedly” supported her claimed tule of law, she means . . . twice. And an examination of those two cases reveals she is quite wrong and, worse, has advanced a seriously misleading argument. Neither case involved, as here, a motion for summary judgment. In both cases, the New York appellate division affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss under the state’s equivalent of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Levy v. Smith, 18 N.Y.S.3d 438, 439 (2d Dep’t 2015); National Puerto Rican Day Parade, Inc. v. Casa Pubs. (“NPR”), 914 N.Y.S.2d 120, 122-23 (1 Dep’t 2010). °As discussed in This Reply, at 16-19, the January 2015 statement would be a strange “press release,” as it threatened to sue the very press to which it was “releasing” information.