DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00861.png

Case 18-2868, Document 280, 08/09/2019, 2628232, Page42 of 74 such a determination of meaning and interpretation is a question of fact for the jury to decide, and is inappropriate for a determination upon summary judgment. B. Material Issues of Fact Preclude Summary Judgment. 1. The Barden Declaration presents disputed issues of fact. The primary basis of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is her attorney’s self- serving, post hoc affidavit wherein he sets forth his alleged “intent” with regard Defendant’s defamatory statement.*” Ms. Giuffre disputes Defendant’s attorney’s alleged and unproven “intent” (not to mention Defendant’s “intent”), not only because Defendant refuses to turn over her attorney’s communications, but also because questions of intent are questions of fact to be determined by a trier of fact. Furthermore, ample record evidence contradicts the claimed “intent.” a. The Barden Declaration is a deceptive back-door attempt to inject Barden’s advice without providing discovery of all attorney communications. In her brief, Defendant discloses her attorney’s alleged legal strategy and alleged legal advice; however, she deliberately states that her attorney “intended,” instead of her attorney “advised,” when discussing her attorney’s legal strategy and advice, using that phrase at least 37 ° 38 : : 39 40 41 times,* and using phrases such as Barden’s “beliefs,””” “purposes,” “goals,” and >7 The Barden declaration is problematic for other reasons as well. In addition to Defendant’s over-length, 68-page motion and among Defendant’s 654 pages of exhibits lies an eight-page attorney affidavit that proffers legal conclusions and arguments. This exhibit is yet another improper attempt to circumvent this Court’s rules on page limits. See Pacenza v. IBM Corp., 363 F. App'x 128, 130 (2d Cir. 2010) (affirming lower court decision to strike “documents submitted . . . in support of his summary judgment motion [that] included legal conclusions and arguments” because those “extraneous arguments constituted an attempt . . . to circumvent page-limit requirements submitted to the court.”); cf HB v. Monroe Woodbury Cent. School Dist., 2012 WL 4477552, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2012) (“The device of incorporating an affirmation into a brief by reference, as Plaintiffs have done here, in order to evade the twenty-five page limit, rather obviously defeats the purpose of the rule”). The court should disregard the Barden Declaration for that reason alone 38 MSJ at 7 (three times), 8 (three), 15 (four), 16, 25 (five), 26, 33, 35 (two), 36 (three); Statement of Facts at 6 (two), 7 (five); Decl. of Philip Barden at 4 (four), 5 (three). °° MSJ at 25, 35; Statement of Facts at 7 (two); Decl. of Philip Barden at 3, 4 (three), 5 (two). 4 MSJ at 8, 25, 35; Statement of Facts at 7 (three); Decl. of Philip Barden at 4 (two), 5 (three). 34