DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00868.png

Case 18-2868, Document 280, 08/09/2019, 2628232, Page49 of 74 remarkably claim, Defendant relies on caselaw involving such mundane topics as “cease and desist” letters sent to opposing parties and the like. Obviously such arguments have no application to the press release that Defendant sent out, worldwide, attacking Ms. Giuffre’s veracity. The problems with the Defendant’s argument are legion. For starters, there is no record evidence — not even Defendant’s own testimony — suggesting that she was contemplating litigation against Ms. Giuffre, or that her press release was related to contemplated litigation against Ms. Giuffre. Tellingly, the only “evidence” Defendant cites of any alleged contemplated litigation is the self-serving, post hoc, partial waiver of attorney-client privilege found in the Barden Declaration. As discussed above, that Declaration fails to establish that there was good faith anticipated litigation between her and Ms. Giuffre, particularly when evidence in the record contradicts such assertions. At the very least, it is a matter of fact for the jury to decide. In another case in which a defendant attempted to claim pre-litigation privilege applied to statements made to the press, this Court denied summary judgment, and held, “[t]o prevail on a qualified privilege defense [defendant] must show that his claim of privilege does not raise triable issues of fact that would defeat it.” Block v. First Blood Associates, 691 F. Supp. 685, 699-700 (Sweet, J.) (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (denying summary judgment on the pre-litigation qualified privilege affirmative defense because there was “a genuine issue as to malice and appropriate purpose’’). Defendant’s claim here likewise fails. First, Defendant’s testimony makes no mention of any contemplated lawsuit — much less, any contemplated lawsuit against Ms. Giuffre. Second, Defendant has offered no witnesses who will testify that she intended to bring any law suit. Third, she did not, in fact, bring any such lawsuit. The only “evidence” is a post hoc Declaration written by her attorney. Finally, it must be 41