DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p01866.png

Case 18-2868, Document 284, 08/09/2019, 2628244, Page15 of 38 a. Reply: This paragraph, eliciting Mr. Barden’s intent, is uncontroverted by Plaintiff. She fails to cite any contradictory admissible evidence, instead making legal arguments. Her arguments are not admissible evidence (e.g., “it is her statement and she directed that it be sent to the media and public,” lacks any citation to record evidence). Plaintiff's list of evidence she contends “corroborates” Plaintiff's claims should be ignored as they do not pertain to Mr. Barden’s purposes in drafting the January 2 statement. 23. Undisputed Fact 23: Second, Mr. Barden intended the January 2015 statement to be “a shot across the bow” of the media, which he believed had been unduly eager to publish plaintiff's allegations without conducting any inquiry of their own. Accordingly, in the statement he repeatedly noted that plaintiff's allegations were “defamatory.” In this sense, the statement was intended as a cease and desist letter to the media-recipients, letting the media-recipients understand the seriousness with which Ms. Maxwell considered the publication of plaintiffs obviously false allegations and the legal indefensibility of their own conduct. Id. 17. a. Reply: Again, Plaintiff “disputes” Mr. Barden’s intent without citation to record evidence. Plaintiff claims that Barden did not “note” anything in the statement, but the statement itself contains the phrase: “Ms. Roberts claims are obvious lies and should be treated as such and not publicized as news, as they are defamatory.” Plaintiff's unsupported arguments should be ignored and these facts pertaining to Mr. Barden’s intent deemed admitted. 24. Undisputed Fact 24: Consistent with those two purposes, Mr. Gow’s emails prefaced the statement with the following language: “Please find attached a quotable statement on behalf of Ms Maxwell” (emphasis supplied). The statement was intended to be a single, one- 14