DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00801.png

Case 18-2868, Document 279, 08/09/2019, 2628231, Page19 of 37 In the case at bar, application of the four Steinhilber factors on the Rule 56 record compels a different conclusion. The complaint alleges three sentences in the January 2015 statement are defamatory: in the first paragraph of the statement, plaintiff Giuffre’s allegations are “untrue”; in the same paragraph, the “original allegations” have been “shown to be untrue”; and in the third paragraph, plaintiff's “claims are obvious lies.”'4 Doc.1 30. Factor 1: Indefiniteness and ambiguity. On the face of the complaint in a 12(b)(6) proceeding, the words “untrue” and “obvious lies” might be susceptible of “a specific and readily understood factual meaning,” Doc.37 at 9. This is especially true if it is taken out of context, e.g., extracted from the statement. But this approach is forbidden. See, e.g., Law Firm of Daniel P. Foster, P.C. v. Turner Broad. Sys., 844 F.2d 955, 959 (2d Cir. 1988). The first sentence—‘[t]he allegations made by [plaintiff] against [Ms. Maxwell] are untrue”—is indefinite and ambiguous because it is wholly unclear which “allegations” are being referenced. The second sentence—‘[t]he original allegations . . . have been fully responded to and shown to be untrue”—also is indefinite and ambiguous for the same reason. Additionally, it is unclear what are the “original” allegations. It is unclear what is meant by “shown to be untrue.” What one person may believe is a fact shown to be untrue, another person may believe is a fact not (sufficiently) shown to be untrue. The existence of God, climate change and existence of widespread voter fraud in the election are examples of this. The third sentence— Ms. Maxwell testified in her deposition that she “know[s]” plaintiff is a “liar.” This testimony, plaintiff argues, “contradict[s]” our contention that the three allegedly defamatory sentences in the July 2015 statement are opinion. Resp. 39-40. Plaintiff's argument is a non- sequitur. Ms. Maxwell’s 2016 deposition testimony in which she disclosed all the reasons she believes plaintiff has uttered a plethora of false allegations is irrelevant to whether the three sentences in the July 2015 statement, prepared by Mr. Barden to respond to the joint-motion allegations, are opinions. 14