DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00795.png

Case 18-2868, Document 279, 08/09/2019, 2628231, Page13 of 37 question: whether Ms. Maxwell affirmatively authorized or requested a person or entity “over whom [s]he has . . . control,” 938 N.E.2d at 921. The only new argument plaintiff makes in her entreaty to see “a jury” is that she should be permitted to prove Ms. Maxwell’s “complicity.” As with her other factually bereft arguments, the complicity argument awaits plaintiff's introduction of facts to support it. Having failed to do so, plaintiff cannot avoid summary judgment. Plaintiff labors in vain to turn the Barden Declaration into “disputed issues of fact.” For there to be a disputed factual issue, plaintiff would need to introduce evidence disputing his sworn statements. She has not done so. In any event, the Barden Declaration is all but irrelevant to the central, dispositive republication question: whether Ms. Maxwell is liable for the media’s republication of her statement, where they did so without her authority or request and where she and her agents had “no control”® over the media. On this question we cited to the Barden Declaration for one evidentiary fact: Messrs. Barden and Gow had no control over the media.’ See Doc.542-7, Ex.K { 24, cited in Memo. of Law 14. Plaintiff has offered no admissible evidence disputing this fact. “{T]here is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). It is one thing to argue in conclusory fashion, as plaintiff does, that “a jury” should decide a factual question. It is quite another to identify evidence in the Rule 56 record that raises a genuine question of material fact, which plaintiff does not do. Summary judgment is warranted. °Geraci, 938 N.E.2d at 921. TAs discussed in Argument I.D., below, we cited more plenarily to the Barden Declaration in connection with a different point—the particular unfairness of subjecting Ms. Maxwell to liability when the media selectively quoted portions of the January 15 statement. 8Tn the Memorandum, we erroneously cited to J 24 of Exhibit J; we intended to cite to q 24 of Exhibit K (Doc.542-1, Ex.K), which is Mr. Barden’s declaration.