Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch2_p00308.png

10 Ld 12 13. 14 iS 16 1? 18 13 20 21 22 23 24 PAs] Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1325-18 Filed 01/04/24 Page 23 of 23 = GLETGIUA put the press on notice that you are challenging the veracity of statements that the British press is publishing, then you will have been deemed to have waived your right to do so in the future. We cited Khalil v. Front, which is a New York Court of Appeals case from last year. It was actually affirming the dismissal of a case on a motion to dismiss. So while plaintiff claims that privileges like this can't be decided at the motion to dismiss stage, the New York Court of Appeals directly found otherwise. And there they said that if a statement is made in anticipation of litigation, whether or not -- I think they used the word "contemplated" litigation, whether or not the litigation actually occurred is not material, but if they are made in anticipation of potential litigation then they are entitled to the prelitigation privilege. So not only do I believe that the statements themselves are non-defamatory general denials, but insofar as they were issued to put the British press on notice, that repetition of them may give rise to litigation. They also should be afford the prelitigation privilege that the New York Court of Appeals has recognized. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you very much. I will reserve decision. 000 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300