Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch6_p00286.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1331-27 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 11 c. Plaintiff next asserts Mr. Gow’s testimony supports her argument Mr. Barden did not direct Mr. Gow to send the January 2015 statement. She points to Mr. Gow’s testimony that “/m]y understanding . . . is”* Ms. Maxwell sent the earlier email to Mr. Barden originally and because he was unavailable, she forwarded it to Mr. Gow. Plaintiffs reliance on this testimony is misplaced. Even if Mr. Gow’s speculation about how he came to receive the email were admissible, it hardly makes plaintiff's point. One, there is no direction—no instruction—given in the email. The words in the subject line “this is the statement” is hardly a “command,” as plaintiff argues, let alone direction to take action. Two, since the email contains no direction, it begs the question, how did Mr. Gow know to issue the January 2015 statement upon receiving the email? The answer is found in Mr. Barden’s declaration. Before Mr. Gow received the email he already knew he was to issue the statement. In Mr. Barden’s words: “In liaison with Mr. Gow and my client, on January 2, 2015, I prepared a further statement .. ., and I instructed Mr. Gow to transmit it via email to” the journalists. Doc.542-7, Ex.K ¥ 10 (emphasis supplied). The answer also is found in Ms. Maxwell’s April 22, 2016, testimony: “/M/y lawyer, Philip Barden[,] instructed Ross Gow to issue a statement.” Mot. 4 (boldface omitted). 5. Plaintiff also argues Ms. Maxwell “attempts to blame the defamatory press release entirely on [Mr. Barden].” Mot. 4. There is no “blaming.” The facts are not in dispute. Ms. Maxwell engaged Mr. Barden as her lawyer; Mr. Barden engaged Mr. Gow as his agent. See Doc.542-7, Ex.K ff 9-10. Ms. Maxwell has not disclaimed legal responsibility for the January 3Mot. 5.