Epstein Secrets

handling that. 5 This is essentially a hearsay exercise. We want information to 6 be excluded regarding Rebecca Boylan. Why? Because Rebecca 7 Boylan has not been deposed and is not going to be a witness in 8 the case. 9 As we understand what the defendant is planning to do, 10 she's planning

ork street 20 that, "I am referring to the statement that we made." As we 21 set forth in our summary judgment brief, this Court's ruling in 22 Adelson v. Harris is directly on point, that a mere reference 23 to another writing that contains defamatory statements does not 24 constitute an actiona

handling that. 5 This is essentially a hearsay exercise. We want information to 6 be excluded regarding Rebecca Boylan. Why? Because Rebecca 7 Boylan has not been deposed and is not going to be a witness in 8 the case. 9 As we understand what the defendant is planning to do, 10 she's planning

t on a New York street that, "I am referring to the statement that we made." As we set forth in our summary judgment brief, this Court's ruling in Adelson v. Harris is directly on point, that a mere reference to another writing that contains defamatory statements does not constitute an actionable repe

tness in the case. As we understand what the defendant is planning to do, she's planning to call Mr. Dershowitz. Mr. Dershowitz is going to say Ms. Boylan told him that Ms. Giuffre told him something, and so we have the classic hearsay within a hearsay situation. The problem, of course, is that Boylan

t on a New York street that, "I am referring to the statement that we made." As we set forth in our summary judgment brief, this Court's ruling in Adelson v. Harris is directly on point, that a mere reference to another writing that contains defamatory statements does not constitute an actionable repe