Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00226.png

20 Za 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-10 Filed 01/08/24 Page 29 of 64 28 H2G8GIUC pre-litigation privilege. It specifically talks about how malice does not apply. In other words, the privilege removing malice that applies to, let us call it, a qualified privilege, a general qualified privilege in the State of New York, does not apply to the pre-litigation privilege. It says so in Khalil. And all that we must show to prevail on summary judgment is good faith anticipated litigation that is related to the statement made by an attorney. It could not be a simpler rule. And, Judge, we have satisfied all the standards. We don't even need to rely on Mr. Barton frankly. We have to rely on Mr. Barton to the extent that he is the lawyer who prepared the statement, but that's not a contested fact, your Honor. I see the plaintiff, as they sometimes want to do, is simply making an argument that, no, he did not prepare the statement, but they have no opposition to Mr. Barton's declaration. They say that Mr. Gow prepared the statement, or Ms. Maxwell prepared the statement. Where is the evidence for that, Judge? There is absolutely no evidence. Mr. Barton's declaration is undisputed on the question of who prepared the statement, who engaged Mr. Gow, who directed Mr. Gow to cause this statement to issue to the media. Let me move on to the issue of opinion, Judge. This is argument two in our motion for summary judgment. The New York Constitution, under Immuno AG and the SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300