DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p01865.png

Case 18-2868, Document 284, 08/09/2019, 2628244, Page14 of 38 a. Reply: Plaintiff makes two responses. As to the first sentence, she asserts without evidentiary support that “the Court should not consider” the Barden Declaration. This argument is frivolous for the reasons given on pages 8, 11-12, 18-19 of the Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. It is a Declaration provided by an attorney with knowledge of the facts, Mr. Barden, disclosed by Defendant in her Rule 26 witnesses, whom Plaintiff chose not to depose. As to the second sentence, Plaintiff offers two pieces of evidence which she argues dispute the facts in question; they do not. That Mr. Gow forwarded the statement, prepared by Mr. Barden, to the media is not disputed. Rather, as Mr. Barden asserted in his declaration, and Plaintiff failed to cite contradictory evidence, he was the one who prepared the vast majority of the statement and instructed Mr. Gow to transmit it via email to members of the British media. Ex.K JJ 10. He likewise avers that he “did not intend the January 2015 statement as a traditional press release solely to disseminate information to the media [and] this is why I intentionally did not request that Mr. Gow or any other public relations specialist prepare or participate in preparing the statement.” /d. at § 15. Plaintiff fails to contradict Mr. Barden’s sworn statement. 22. Undisputed Fact 22: The January 2015 statement served two purposes. First, Mr. Barden intended that it mitigate the harm to Ms. Maxwell’s reputation from the press’s republication of plaintiff's false allegations. He believed these ends could be accomplished by suggesting to the media that, among other things, they should subject plaintiff's allegations to inquiry and scrutiny. For example, he noted in the statement that plaintiffs allegations changed dramatically over time, suggesting that they are “obvious lies” and therefore should not be “publicised as news.” Id. 11. 13