DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p02012.png

Case 18-2868, Document 287, 08/09/2019, 2628251, Page64 of 76 where plaintiff had ceased being an adulterer but had “unabashedly committed adultery” for thirteen of seventeen years). Finally, there are “those cases in which a defendant simply asks too much in asserting that a statement is substantially true because the difference between the two is plainly substantial.” Jewell, 23 F. Supp. at 368. For example, the court in Da Silva, 908 F. Supp. at 186-87, held that a photograph of plaintiff which identified her as a prostitute was not substantially true where the plaintiff had been a prostitute for some six years but was not at the time of publication. After reviewing this spectrum of cases, the facts upon which Maxwell bases her argument are insufficient to allow this Court to find substantial truth as a matter of law. A material dispute of fact exists as to the “admitted truth” or the “reality” in this case. Maxwell has cited to various facts to counter Giuffre’s claims, such as Giuffre’s high school enrollment, short-term jobs, and lack of record on private flight logs during some of the relevant time period, as evidence that Maxwell and Epstein did not abuse Giuffre. The details and significance of the facts offered are highly contested, and therefore cannot establish the “substantial truth” of the Press Release. “[R]easonable jurors could conclude that the statements 64