DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00823.png

VI. VIL. VUI. Case 18-2868, Document 280, 08/09/2019, 2628232, Page4 of 74 a. The Barden Declaration is a deceptive back-door attempt to inject Barden’s advice without providing discovery of all attOrMey COMMUNICATIONS. ........cesceeeeeseeeceeceeeseeeeeeseeceeeeeeeeereeeaees 34 b. Defendant’s summary judgment argument requires factual findings regarding Barden’s intent, thereby precluding SUMMATY JUCGMENL. 00... eeseeseeceseeeceeceeeseeceseeaeeceeecseeeceeceeseeeeeeaeees 35 c. There are factual disputes regarding Barden’s Declaration........... 36 C. Defendant’s Defamatory Statement Was Not Opinion as a Matter of Law.......... 38 D. The Pre-Litigation Privilege Does Not Apply to Defendant’s Press Release ....... 40 1. Defendant fails to make a showing that the pre-litigation privilege C10) 0) ee ee 40 2. Defendant is foreclosed from using the pre-litigation privilege because she acted with malice... eecesecseeseseseeeeseseseesesescececsesseesseseeeeaeseeeeeeas 43 3. Defendant cannot invoke the pre-litigation privilege because she has no “meritorious claim” for “good faith” litigation. 00.0... ese eeeeeeeeeeeees 46 DEFENDANT HAS NOT - AND CANNOT - SHOW THAT HER DEFAMATORY STATEMENT IS SUBSTANTIALLY TRUE ..u.. ccc cececeeseeececeseeeeeseeeeesseenesaeneeees 47 PLAINTIFF DOES NOT NEED TO ESTABLISH MALICE FOR HER DEFAMATION CLAIM, BUT IN THE EVENT THE COURT RULES OTHERWISE, THERE IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT RECORD EVIDENCE FOR A REASONABLE JURY TO DETERMINE DEFENDANT ACTED WITH ACTUAL MALICE... ccccccccccescsececseseesecsesseecseseeecscsesesassesesesaesseesecseseasscseeesaeseeeeanas 49 THE COURT NEED NOT REACH THE ISSUE, AT THIS TIME, OF WHETHER MS. GIUFFRE IS A LIMITED PURPOSE PUBLIC FIGURE... eee eects 51 THE JANUARY 2015 STATEMENT WAS NOT “SUBSTANTIALLY TRUE,” AND MS. GIUFFRE HAS PRODUCED CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF ITS FALSITY wu. cecescseceesesceececsesseecscsesecacsesessvscsecesasaeeecessessasscseeeeasseeeeenaeaes 55 A. When Ms. Giuffre Initially Described Her Encounters With Defendant and Epstein, She Mistakenly Believed the First Encounter Occurred During the Year 1999. ice ceccseseeseseseeesseseececsesseecscseeeescseseessscseeesasaceesesseseeesseeseesaeseeeeras 57 B. Defendant’s January 2015 Statement Claiming as “Untrue” and an “Obvious Lie” the Allegation That She Regularly Participated in Epstein’s Sexual Exploitation of Minors and That the Government Knows Such Fact is Not Substantially True But Instead Completely False. occ eeeeeeeeeeseteeeseees 58 ili