Epstein Secrets

ss Complaints". Your Honor will notice that this document is not marked confidential, it was produced by Ms. Maxwell over a year ago, it is marked Ghislaine Maxwell 0006, and it's a communication between herself and Alan Dershowitz, someone with whom she does not have a joint defense agreement, and that's why she pr

20 21 22 23 24 25 H3VOGIU1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x VIRGINIA L. GIUFFRE, Plaintiff, Vv. 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. Oral Argument x New York, N.Y. March 31, 2017 LO310 a.m, Before? HON. ROBERT W. SWEET, District Judge APPEARANCES BOIES, SCHILLER

the scope of this case, which is a real issue, obviously. So is it you are restricting your claim to the truth and falsity of the statements about Maxwell? MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, that is the case, your Honor. The SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011305 10 id. 12 13 14

edia coverage. If you notice the date of that article, your Honor, it's March 5th, 2011. The next document I provided is a press statement issued by Ghislaine Maxwell on March 10th, 2011, so five days later, in which she writes, care of her attorneys, "Ghislaine Maxwell denies the various allegations about her th

alks about Virginia Giuffre's allegations against Ms. Maxwell have been proven untrue. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPO

I guess, unless you all think it's been covered, the Maxwell motions. What do you think? MR. PAGLIUCA: Your

5 H3VOGIU1 alleged to have defamed someone based on facts, not opinions. THE COURT: Agreed. Agreed. MS. MENNINGER: And so she can -- the Davis v. Boeheim case is a perfect example of that, your Honor. She can only speak to facts about which she has personal knowledge. If plaintiff goes and proves that

6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Plaintiff, v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL, Defendant. Before: x x 15 Civ. 7433 (RWS) Oral Argument New York, N.Y. March 31, 2017 10:10 a.m. HON. ROBERT W. SWEET, District J

the scope of this case, which is a real issue, obviously. So is it you are restricting your claim to the truth and falsity of the statements about Maxwell? MS. McCAWLEY: Yes, that is the case, your Honor. The SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00612251 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10

If you notice the date of that 10 article, your Honor, it's March 5th, 2011. 11 The next document I provided is a press statement 12 issued by Ghislaine Maxwell on March 10th, 2011, so five days 13 later, in which she writes, care of her attorneys, "Ghislaine 14 Maxwell denies the various allegations abou

entire statement talks about allegations against Ms. Maxwell have been proven untrue. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPO

I guess, unless you all think it's been covered, the Maxwell motions. What do you think? MR. PAGLIUCA: Your

s Complaints". Your Honor will notice that this document is not marked confidential, it was produced by Ms. Maxwell over a year ago, it is marked Ghislaine Maxwell 0006, and it's a communication between herself and Alan Dershowitz, someone with whom she does not have a joint defense agreement, and that's why she p

5 H3VOGIU1 alleged to have defamed someone based on facts, not opinions. THE COURT: Agreed. Agreed. MS. MENNINGER: And so she can -- the Davis v. Boeheim case is a perfect example of that, your Honor. She can only speak to facts about which she has personal knowledge. If plaintiff goes and proves th

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.

duct, 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). Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempts to analogize the subject Statement to those in Boeheim and Clemens. Yet in bo