DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p00869.png

Case 18-2868, Document 280, 08/09/2019, 2628232, Page50 of 74 remembered, as explained at length above, the Defendant had sexually trafficking Defendant and was attempting to continue to conceal her criminal acts. Whether her statements had an “appropriate purpose,” Block 691 F. Supp. at 699-700 (Sweet, J.) — or were, rather, efforts by a criminal organization to silence its victims — is obviously contested. Accordingly, obvious issues of fact exist as to whether or not Defendant contemplated litigation. Distorting reality, Defendant further argues: “Statements pertinent to a good faith anticipated litigation made by attorneys (or their agents under their direction) before the commencement of litigation are privileged.” (MSJ at 33). The record evidence shows that Defendant’s attorney did not make the defamatory statement. Further, Defendant’s attorney’s agents did not make the defamatory statement. Defendant did. And, there was no statement made by anyone “before the commencement of litigation” because litigation never commenced. Accordingly, the cases Defendant cites where attorneys are making statements (or where clients are making statements to their attorneys regarding judicial proceedings including malpractice) are wholly inapposite as detailed below.* 45 e Front v. Khalil, 24 N.Y.3d 713, 720 (2015) - statement made by attorney. e Flomenhaft v. Finkelstein, 127 A.D.3d 634, 637 n.2, 8 N.Y.S.3d 161 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015) - did not even address pre-litigation privilege, and said that Front, Inc. was not relevant to the case. e Kirk vy. Heppt, 532 F. Supp. 2d 586, 593 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) - the communication at issue was made by an attorney’s client to the attorney’s malpractice carrier concerning the client’s justiciable controversy against the attorney over which the clients actually sued. e Petrus v Smith, 91 A.D.2d 1190 (N.Y.A.D.,1983) - the court held: “[r]emarks of attorney to Surrogate are cloaked with absolute immunity as statements made in course of judicial proceedings — Attorney’s gratuitous opinion outside courthouse calling plaintiff liar . . . is not similarly immune.” (This case undermines the false argument Defendant tries to make). e Klien - contrary to dicta quoted by Defendant from the Klein case, there were no communications made “between litigating parties or their attorneys,” just a press release Defendant instructed her press agent to disseminate to the media. e Frechtman y. Gutterman, 115 A.D.3d 102, 103, 979 N.Y.S.2d 58, 61 (2014) - the communication at issue was a letter sent by a client to his attorney terminating the representation for malpractice. e Sexter & Warmflash, P.C. v. Margrabe, 38 A.D.3d 163 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. 2007) - privilege applied to letter client sent discharging law firm as the client’s attorneys as statements relating to a judicial proceeding and law firm sued for defamation. 42