DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00857.png

Case 18-2868, Document 280, 08/09/2019, 2628232, Page38 of 74 argument is not only an affront to logic, but it is contrary to prevailing New York case law, cited above. Perhaps even more important, in the context of the pending summary judgment motion, it would require Defendant to convince the jury that she did not “authorize or intend” for the major media to publish her press release. Obviously the disputed facts on this point are legion, and summary judgment is accordingly inappropriate. Even the cases Defendant cites contradict her argument. She first cites Geraci v. Probst, in which a defendant sent a letter to the Board of Fire Commissioners, and, years later, a newspaper published the letter. The court held that the defendant was not liable for that belated publication, “made years later without his knowledge or participation.” /d., at 340. By contrast, Defendant not only authorized the defamatory statement, but paid money to her publicist to convince media outlets to publish it promptly — actions taken with both her knowledge and consent. Defendant’s statement was thus not published “without [her] authority or request,” as in Geraci, but by her express authority and by her express request. Defendant’s publicist’s testimony and the documents produced by Defendant’s publicist unambiguously establish that the media published her press release with Defendant’s authority and by her request: Q. When you sent that email were you acting pursuant to Ms. Maxwell’s retention of your services? A. Yes, I was eK Q. The subject line does have “FW” which to me indicates it’s a forward. Do you know where the rest of this email chain is? A. My understanding of this is: It was a holiday in the UK, but Mr. Barden was not necessarily accessible at some point in time, so this had been sent to him originally by Ms. Maxwell, and because he was unavailable, she forwarded it to me for immediate action. I therefore respond, “Okay, Ghislaine, I’ll go with this.” It is my understanding that this is the agreed statement because the subject of the second one is “Urgent, this is the statement” so I take that as an instruction to send it out, as a positive command: “This is the statement.”** 35 See McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 6, Ross Gow Dep. Tr. at 14:15-17; 44:6-45:13 (emphasis added). 30