DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00865.png

Case 18-2868, Document 280, 08/09/2019, 2628232, Page46 of 74 Another example is that Defendant states that “Gow served only as Mr. Barden’s conduit to the media” (MTD at 25), and “Mr. Barden was directing the January 2-15 statement to a discrete number of media representatives.” Barden wasn’t directing anything — he wasn’t even in the loop when Defendant decided to publish the statement - and the documents prove it. Indeed, the press release itself states that it is “on behalf of Ms. Maxwell,” not Barden, and it was Defendant who gave the “positive command” to Gow to publish it. These are just a couple of examples, among many, of the purported facts asserted in Defendant’s motion and Barden’s Declaration that are directly refuted by facts in the record. Finally, neither the media nor the general public could have known that the statement should be attributed to Barden. His name was nowhere in it, nor is there any reference to counsel. Defendant’s argument that the “context” is the media knowing Barden’s intent or involvement is unsupported by the record. The significant factual disputes about Barden, alone, prevent summary judgment. Cc. Defendant’s Defamatory Statement Was Not Opinion as a Matter of Law. As this Court previously held, correctly, Defendant stating that Ms. Giuffre’s claims of sexual assault are lies is not an expression of opinion: “First, statements that Giuffre’s claims ‘against [Defendant] are untrue,’ have been ‘shown to be untrue,’ and are ‘obvious lies’ have a specific and readily understood factual meaning: that Giuffre is not telling the truth about her history of sexual abuse and Defendant’s role, and that some verifiable investigation has occurred and come to a definitive conclusion proving that fact. Second, these statements (as they themselves allege), are capable of being proven true or false, and therefore constitute actionable fact and not opinion. Third, in their full context, while Defendant’s statements have the effect of generally denying Plaintiff's story, they also clearly constitute fact to the reader.” Giuffre v. Maxwell, 165 F. Supp. 3d 147, 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). This Court further explained: “Plaintiff cannot be making claims shown to be untrue that are obvious lies without being a liar. Furthermore, to suggest an individual is not telling the truth 38