Epstein Secrets

enies." "Ms. Roberts claims are obvious lies and should be treated as such and not publicized as news, as they are defamatory." 4 EFTA00792759 "Ghislaine Maxwell's original response to the lies and defamatory claims remains the same. Maxwell strongly denies allegations of an unsavory nature, which have appeared

l was living in New York. Plaintiff is a United States Citizen. Plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $75,000.00. Defendant's Statement: Ms. Maxwell agrees with the Plaintiff's statement, above. iv. A brief summary by each party of the claims and defenses that party has asserted which remain to

t the repetition of such old defamatory claims." GM 00068. Plaintiff's Complaint also seeks damages

York Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT Pu

in excess of $75,000.00. Defendant's Statement: Ms. Maxwell agrees with the Plaintiff's statement, above. iv

nce or actual malice, depending on the plaintiff's status; (4) falsity; (5) special damages or per se libel." February 27, 2016 Order at 6. See also McNamee v. Clemens, 762 F. Supp. 2d 584 (E.D. N.Y. 2011); Dillon v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d 34 (1999). Ms. alleged that Defendant was involved with

ch he denies." "Ms. claims are obvious lies and should be treated as such and not publicized as news, as they are defamatory." 4 EFTA00617399 "Ghislaine Maxwell's original response to the lies and defamatory claims remains the same. Maxwell strongly denies allegations of an unsavory nature, which have appeared

l was living in New York. Plaintiff is a United States Citizen. Plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $75,000.00. Defendant's Statement: Ms. Maxwell agrees with the Plaintiff's statement, above. iv. A brief summary by each party of the claims and defenses that party has asserted which remain to

t the repetition of such old defamatory claims." GM 00068. Plaintiff's Complaint also seeks damages

York Plaintiff, Case No.: 15-cv-07433-RWS v. Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT Pu

in excess of $75,000.00. Defendant's Statement: Ms. Maxwell agrees with the Plaintiff's statement, above. iv

nce or actual malice, depending on the plaintiff's status; (4) falsity; (5) special damages or per se libel." February 27, 2016 Order at 6. See also McNamee v. Clemens, 762 F. Supp. 2d 584 (E.D. N.Y. 2011); Dillon v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d 34 (1999). Ms. alleged that Defendant was involved with

Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 25 Filed 12/28/15 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. Case No.: I5-cv-07433-RWS REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT Laura A. Menninger HADDON,

INTRODUCTION ARGUMENT I. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PLAUSIBLY PLEAD DEFAMATION A. Plaintiff Failed to Adequately Plead a Defamation Claim 1 B. Ms. Maxwell's Statement In Context Is Not Defamatory 3 II. MS. MAXWELL'S STATEMENTS ARE PROTECTED BY PRIVILEGE 6 A. Qualified Privilege May Form the Basis f

OR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. Case No.: I5-cv-07433-RWS

ed to Adequately Plead a Defamation Claim 1 B. Ms. Maxwell's Statement In Context Is Not Defamatory 3 II.

defendant...in the New York Post were in the nature of a general denial of plaintiff['s] accusations of misconduct, not an attack on plaintiffs."); McNamee v. Clemens, 762 F.Supp.2d 584, 601 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ("[G]eneral denials aren't actionable."); Davis v. Boeheim, 24 N.Y.3d 262, 271-72 (N.Y. 2014). P

/15 Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X PLAINTIFF, V. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, DEFENDANT. X 15-cv-07433-RWS GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT Laura A. Menninger, Esq. HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C. 150 East 10th Ave

r CO 80203 Tel: Dated: November 30, 2015 EFTA00595583 Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 15 Filed 12/01/15 Page 2 of 29 Table of Contents I. MS. MAXWELL'S STATEMENTS ARE PRIVILEGED 9 A. The Self-Defense Privilege Protects Ms. Maxwell's Statements 9 B. The Pre-Litigation Privilege Protects Ms. Maxw

attributed statement responds directly to allegations and claims made by Plaintiff. Compl. 1 31. Likewise to the extent the claimed statement that "Ghislaine Maxwell's original response to the lies and defamatory claims remains the same" (Compl. 1 32) refers to an earlier statement describing Plaintiff's "factual

led 12/01/15 Page 2 of 29 Table of Contents I. MS. MAXWELL'S STATEMENTS ARE PRIVILEGED 9 A. The Self-Defen

rivilege and therefore is not actionable. Further, general denials such as the January 3 Statement are not actionable as defamatory statements. See McNamee v. Clemens, 762 F.Supp.2d 584, 601 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) ("general denials of accusations aren't actionable"); Independent Living Aids, Inc. v. Mau-Aids,