HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011369.jpg

10 fd. 12 [3 14 15 16 i) 18 wife) 20 21 22 23 24 25 66 H3VOGIU1 Plaintiff was a witness in that case. She was deposed in that case. She testified under oath in that case, represented by the same counsel that she has here. Her testimony in that case is admissible. She participated in that case, your Honor, from March of 2015 or so until it settled in or around April of 2016, and she reported to her doctors that it was causing her a significant amount of stress. In fact, shortly before she was deposed in that case she went to a doctor and requested that she get more Valium to help her handle her upcoming deposition. Dr. Miller, our psychiatrist, found that her participation in that lawsuit as a witness caused her significant stress and explained many of her complained of symptoms, and he said that they wer xacerbated by her participation in that litigation. Third, evidence regarding that lawsuit goes to her reputational damages. Again, your Honor, I refer to the federal evidence treatise relied on by plaintiff. In defamation cases, defendants can also prove other liables and rumors about the claimant are circulating, at least if they are widespread, to demonstrate it is not what the defendant said about the plaintiff that caused her reputation to suffer but what others said. Your Honor has read the 702 pleadings. Plaintiff's experts have pulled off the internet all kinds of stories that SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011369