DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00871.png

Case 18-2868, Document 280, 08/09/2019, 2628232, Page52 of 74 evidence has been adduced to support the inference that [defendant] acted with malice, and may not, therefore, claim a qualified privilege under New York law . . . a genuine issue as to malice and appropriate purpose has properly been raised and is sufficient to preclude summary judgment.”). For example, Ms. Sjoberg testified that Defendant recruited her for sex with Epstein, thus corroborating Ms. Giuffre’s own account of Defendant’s involvement in abusing her with Epstein. For another example, Jeffrey Epstein’s pilot testified that Defendant flew with Ms. Giuffre on at least 23 flights, thus corroborating Ms. Giuffre’s claims against Defendant. See McCawley Dec. at Exhibit 15, Rodgers Dep. Tr., at 34:3-10. For another example, Tony Figueroa testified that Defendant asked him for assistance in recruiting girls for Epstein — more testimony that corroborates Ms. Giuffre’s claims against Defendant. Defendant’s statements that Ms. Giuffre was lying and her claims of sexual abuse were “obvious lies” were not pertinent to a good faith anticipated litigation but, instead, they were made for an inappropriate purpose — i.e., to bully, harass, intimidate, and ultimately silence Ms. Giuffre. As the record evidence shows, Defendant knew the statements were false because Defendant engaged in and facilitated the sexual abuse of this minor child, therefore, they were made for the inappropriate purpose of “bullying,” “harassment,” and “intimidation.” See Front v. Khalil, 24 N.Y.3d 713, 720 (2015). Simply put, Defendant sexually trafficked Ms. Giuffre — and then tried to silence Ms. Giuffre to keep her crimes secret — circumstances that prevent her from using privileges designed to shield legitimate legal disputes from court interference. New York case law fully confirms that pre-litigation qualified privilege does not apply to this case. Historically, statements made in the course of litigation were entitled to privilege from defamations claims “so that those discharging a public function may speak freely to zealously represent their clients without fear of reprisal or financial hazard.” Jd. at 718. A 2015 New York 44