Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00216.png

20 Za 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-10 Filed 01/08/24 Page 19 of 64 18 H2G8GIUC And in Geraci, the court said that Davis is right, that you need control and authority over the republication in order for a defendant to incur liability. I would also say, Judge, that the plaintiff's disagreement with this rule fails to acknowledge the unique history and the robust protection of free speech that the New York Constitution has afforded speakers in the state of New York. This is discussed in the Immuno AG case cited in our papers. At the end of the day, Judge, the plaintiff chose to sue in New York, chose to have New York State law apply. The plaintiff doesn't have to like it. They just have to live with it. And the law is very clear as stated in Davis. Now, with regard to the undisputed facts on this question, Judge, there is no question that Mr. Barton, Ms. Maxwell's lawyer, as her agent, caused the January 2015 statement to issue. The e-mail that accompanies that January 2015 statement says, in effect, here is a quotable statement. Here is what it does not say, Judge. It does not say, you are hereby commanded to reprint and republish what we say here. It doesn't say, if you do not print this quotable statement, we will sue you. It does not say that if you republish the joinder motion allegations, you must also republish the statement. Ultimately, what the e-mail does is that it leaves totally in the discretion of the media whether to publish this quotable statement or not to publish the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300