DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00794.png

Case 18-2868, Document 279, 08/09/2019, 2628231, Page12 of 37 (emphasis supplied; citing Rinaldi, 420 N.E.2d at 382). Judge Sofaer studied Rinaldi’s holding, and noted republication liability must be based on a “decision” by the defendant to republish and must focus on “real authority to influence the final product, not upon evidence of acquiescence or peripheral involvement in the republication process.” Id. at 1096 (emphasis supplied). 2” Accordingly, Judge Sofaer held, when there is “conclusive evidence of lack of actual authority this is “dispositive” of republication liability and the trial court “‘ha[s] no option but to dismiss the case against the [defendant].” /d. (emphasis supplied; quoting Rinaldi, 420 N.E.2d at 382). There is no evidence Ms. Maxwell “paid money to her publicist to convince” the media to publish her statement; this is why plaintiff cites no evidence to support that assertion. See Resp. 30. Mr. Gow’s email containing the statement says nothing to “convince” the media to publish the statement. See Doc.542-6, Ex.F. There is no evidence Ms. Maxwell was “active” in “influencing the media to publish” it; nor is there any evidence she “pushed for’ or “requested” its publication; this is why plaintiff cites no evidence to support these assertions. See id. 31. Indeed, plaintiff has zero evidence Ms. Maxwell or her agents ever did anything to urge or request any media to publish the statement. Mr. Gow presented the January 2015 statement via email to six to thirty media representatives; it was not sent to anyone else; in the email he told the journalists he was presenting a “quotable statement” “‘on behalf of’ Ms. Maxwell and “Tnjo further communication will be provided.” Doc.542-6, Ex.F. It is undisputed Ms. Maxwell and her agents had no control over the media that republished portions of the statement. Doc.542-7, 542-7, Ex.J ff] 2-3; id., Ex.K J 24. Plaintiff argues “a jury” should decide whether Ms. Maxwell “authorized or intended” the statement to be republished, or “approved of, and even participated, in” its republication. Resp. 30-31. All plaintiffs want to get to “a jury.” The summary-judgment question is whether they deserve to. Plaintiff has offered no evidence to put before a jury on the dispositive Geraci 7