DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00828.png

Case 18-2868, Document 280, 08/09/2019, 2628232, Page9 of 74 L PRELIMINARY STATEMENT There can be no question that disputed issues of material facts preclude granting summary judgment when, in a one-count defamation case, Defendant presents the Court with a 68-page memorandum of law, a 16-page statement of purported facts, and approximately 700 pages of exhibits. The sheer scope of Defendant’s response, if anything, conclusively demonstrates that volumes of disputed facts surround the core question of whether Defendant abused Ms. Giuffre. Indeed, Defendant acknowledges a dispute between the parties as to whether she abused Ms. Giuffre. See, e.g., Motion for Summary Judgment at 1; Motion to Dismiss at 1. This Court already said that this disputed factual question is central to this case: Either Plaintiff is telling the truth about her story and Defendant’s involvement, or defendant is telling the truth and she was not involved in the trafficking and ultimate abuse of Plaintiff. The answer depends on facts. Defendant’s statements are therefore actionable as defamation. Whether they ultimately prove to meet the standards of defamation (including but not limited to falsity) is a matter for the fact-finder. Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss at 10. While this fact remains in dispute, summary judgment is foreclosed. But even turning to Defendant’s claims, the avalanche of aspersions she casts upon Ms. Giuffre and her counsel should not distract the Court from the fact that the instant motion cannot come within sight of meeting the standard for an award of summary judgment. The most glaring and emblematic example of the Defendant’s far-fetched claims appears in her attempt to move away from her defamatory statement by arguing that it was her attorney and not her, who issued the defamatory statement for the press to publish, though she is forced to admit the statement was made on her behalf. This is an untenable position to take at trial, and an impossible argument to advance at the summary judgment stage, as both the testamentary and documentary evidence positively refute that argument. Defendant incorrectly asks this Court to make a factual