DocumentCloud_Epstein_Docs_p02018.png

Case 18-2868, Document 287, 08/09/2019, 2628251, Page70 of 76 2. The Pre-Litigation Privilege is Inapplicable. Maxwell has contended that the pre-litigation privilege as enunciated in Front, Inc. v. Khalil, 28 N.E.3d 15, 16 (N.Y. 2015), applies. See Def.’s Br. at 33. “A privileged communication is one which, but for the occasion on which it is uttered, would be defamatory and actionable.” Park Knoll Assocs. v. Schmidt, 451 N.E.2d 182, 184 (N.Y. 1983). “[I]t is well-settled that statements made in the course of litigation are entitled to absolute privilege.” Front, 28 N.E.3d at 18. The privilege that protects statements made in the course of litigation “can extend to preliminary or investigative stages of the process, particularly where compelling public interests are at stake.” Rosenberg v. MetLife, Inc., 866 N.E.3d 439, 443 (N.Y. 2007). In Front, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the privilege for “statements made by attorneys prior to the commencement of litigation” is qualified rather than absolute. Id. at 16. Specifically, the Court held that an attorney’s statements made before litigation has commenced are privileged if (1) the attorney has “a good faith basis to anticipate litigation” and (2) the statements are “pertinent to that anticipated litigation.” Id. at 20. 70