DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00805.png

Case 18-2868, Document 279, 08/09/2019, 2628231, Page23 of 37 recipients that they republished plaintiff's obvious falsehoods against Ms. Maxwell at their legal peril. See id. JJ 13, 16, 17, 20. As the New York Court of Appeals observed, the context of a statement often is the “key consideration” in fact vs. opinion cases. Davis, 22 N.E.3d at 1006. So it is here. As Davis suggested, the three challenged statements are “subject to [Ms. Maxwell’s] interpretation,” id. at 1007; accord Sweeney v. Prisoners’ Legal Servs. of N.Y., 538 N.Y.S.2d 370, 371-72 (3d Dep’t 1989). The context of the January 2015 statement makes clear that the characterization of plaintiff's allegations and claims as “untrue” or “obvious lies” are ultimate opinions— conclusions—drawn from disclosed facts. Factor 4: The broader setting surrounding the statement, including conventions that might signal to readers that the statement likely is opinion and not fact. It is undisputed that the January 2015 statement was sent exclusively to more than six and fewer than thirty media representatives, each of whom expressly had requested from Mr. Gow that he provide them with Ms. Maxwell’s reply to the new joint-motion allegations. Doc.542-7, Ex.K {J 8, 10. As was obvious from the statement, it was not a traditional press release, as such a release does not explain—lawyer-like—why new allegations when measured against previous allegations lack credibility. Nor does a traditional release threaten to sue the media to whom the release is sent. The media representatives upon receiving the January 2015 statement would have understood it was presenting an (opinionated) argument that plaintiff was not credible because of her had had sex with Professor Dershowitz, since (a) Churcher suggests that he would be a “good name” to “pitch” because of his prominence (“‘he [represented] Claus von Bulow and a movie was made about that case...title was Reversal of Fortune’), and (b) Churcher states, “We all suspect [Professor Dershowitz] is a pedo[phile] and tho no proof of that, you probably met him when he was hanging put w [Epstein].” Menninger Decl., ExHIBIT.OO, at Giuffre004096-97 (emphasis supplied). 18