Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch7_p00257.png

20 Za 22 23 24 25 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1332-10 Filed 01/08/24 Page 60 of 64 59 H2G8GIUC her agent, did not control what the media did with that. I hear Ms. McCawley try to characterize the authorization and control law relevant to republication. I guess I could ask the Court to disregard what Ms. McCawley and I say altogether because we have laid out the law. If the Court looks at, for example, footnote 3 on page 3 of our reply brief, we cited to five, six cases from the federal district courts in New York. In Egiazaryan, the 2012 case, it says the original publisher is not liable for republication where he had nothing to do with the decision to republish and he had no control over it. Well, those are facts, Judge. In Egiazaryan II, same holding. That's a 2011 opinion. In Davis v. Costa-Gavras, which is this Court's 1984 decision, what does the court say? Under New York law, liability for a subsequent republication must be based on real authority to influence the final product, not upon evidence of acquiescence or peripheral involvement in the republication process. Judge, we are within Davis. We didn't have any influence over the final product. At best, we had acquiescence or peripheral involvement, but Davis says that's not enough. In the earlier Davis case, from 580 F.Supp., at 1094, it says the original publisher is not liable for injuries SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300