DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p02008.png

Case 18-2868, Document 287, 08/09/2019, 2628251, Page60 of 76 specialist. The Press Release was sent by Maxwell’s express request. Gow’s testimony about the process leading up to the dissemination of the Press Release indicates that Maxwell did, indeed, “authorize or intend” for the media recipients to publish the statement. Because there are sufficient facts to demonstrate Maxwell’s authority and control over the publication of the Press Release, Maxwell’s liability for the Press Release’s publication survives the motion for summary judgment. Maxwell has additionally asserted that subjecting her to liability for republication is “particularly unfair” because excerpts of the Press Release, rather than the whole statement, were published. Def.’s Reply at 9. Maxwell cites to Rand v. New York Times Co., 75 A.D.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. lst Dep’t 1980), in which a newspaper paraphrased the defendant’s opinion, essentially “excis[ing] the opinion from the context in which it was given.” Id. at 424. No similar alteration, sanitization, hyperbolizing, or paraphrasing of Maxwell’s statements has been established here. Nor does the record establish that any statements of Maxwell’s were taken out of context; rather, they were directly quoted, accurately and unchanged. The publication of Maxwell’s statement that Giuffre’s claims are “obvious lies” 60