10
id.
12
13
14
L5
16
ne)
18
life)
20
21
22
23
24
25
91 H3vlgiu2
AFTERNOON SESSION
13:30 psms
THE COURT: Who's up? I think the defense?
MR. PAGLIUCA: Yes, your Honor. I think Ms. Schultz
requested that we take up No. 666 at this point, which we're
happy to do.
THE COURT: Oh, yess Yes.
MS. MENNINGER: Your Honor, this motion relates to our
request that w xclud vidence barred as a consequence of plaintiff's summary judgment concessions. We asked in argument
4 of our summary judgment motion for partial summary judgment
with respect to the oral statement on January 4th toa KEpOrcer s
THE COURT: Hold the phone.
MS. MENNINGER: Sure.
THE COURT: Sorry. Needless to say, I'm drowning.
Ah, okay. Okay. Sorry. Yes.
MS. MENNINGER: We asked for partial summary judgment
with respect to our client's statement 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 repetition or republication. In that
case, in Adelson, there was, first, an allegedly defamatory
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011394