THE COURT: Well, what do you say about the case

10 id. 12 13 14 L5 16 ne) 18 life) 20 21 22 23 24 25 96 H3vlgiu2 THE COURT: Well, what do you say about the case that's been cited? MS. SCHULTZ: Well, about Adelson? I would say that it's factually distinguished because here she is two days later reiterating her defamatory statement. And I would also direct you to the case in my brief, Wheelings v. Iacuone. THI ira] COURT: Let me just get the time frame right. MS~ SCHULTZ: Sure « THI ira] COURT: The initial statement is January, and when is this? MS. SCHULTZ: So, your Honor, the email that went to the media, it was first issued on January 2, 2015; it was published on January 3, 2015; and the statement took place the next day, on January 4, 2015. THE COURT: Okay. MS. SCHULTZ: A recent opinion in this district, the Wheelings case, makes it clear that you can't reargue summary judgment on a motion in limine and also makes it clear that you can't say, oh, because one person THE COURT: The issue is, was the second statement defamatory? MS. SCHULTZ: I think that was an issue at summary judgment that Ms. Giuffre opposed in its entirety, and I think that's already been resolved. = THE COURT: How? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011399