DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00793.png

Case 18-2868, Document 279, 08/09/2019, 2628231, Page11 of 37 While trying to distinguish this Court’s decision in Davis, plaintiff fails to disclose that Davis itself—decided 26 years before Geraci—also rejected plaintiff's foreseeability argument. The Davis plaintiffs, like plaintiff Giuffre here, also asserted republication liability, despite defendant’s lack of participation, on the ground “he could reasonably have foreseen that republication would occur.” 580 F.Supp. at 1096. This Court, relying on Karaduman, was unpersuaded: The New York Court of Appeals “has not applied the foreseeability standard suggested by plaintiffs in prior libel cases in which such a standard would have been relevant, if not controlling.” Jd. This Court noted: The jurisdictions that have adopted a foreseeability standard “have refused to hold responsible a defendant with no control or influence over the entity that actually republished the statement.” /d. Plaintiff's failure to disclose this Court’s holdings in Davis is a notable lapse in candor. C. Plaintiff’s purported application of the Geraci rule is misleading and wrong. Plaintiff eventually purports to apply the “old” standard, that is to say, the controlling law in the state of New York. She argues Ms. Maxwell “authorized” the January 2015 statement, 99 66, “paid money to her publicist to convince media outlets to publish it,” “request[ed]” its 99 «6, publication, “made a deliberate decision to publish her press release,” “actively participated” in “the decision to publish her press release,” was “active” in “influencing the media to publish” the statement, and “approved of” and “pushed for” the publication of the statement. Resp. 30-31. These argument-manufactured facts have no record support. In applying the controlling law, plaintiff wittingly makes a mess of it. She disingenuously suggests any help Ms. Maxwell gave to help her lawyer prepare the January 2015 statement and her signing-off on it are the equivalent of requesting, authorizing and controlling its republication. That isn’t the law. The “authority” required for republication liability is the “actual authority .. . to decide upon or implement” the republication. 580 F.Supp. at 1095 6