UNITED STATES COURT SOUTHERN DIST-4.7RIC13.5T OF NEW Plaintiff7 RESP11.1ONSE TO SHARON CHURCHER MOTION TO QUASH 8SUBP10.3OENA-13 A HADDON 9AND FOREMAN P.C East th Ave5.1nue De5.5nver CO Case Document Filed Page of i TABLE OF NTE-8 TRODUCT-8.2 ARGUMENT-6.8 I CHURCHER A F6 ACT TNES-13 AND WAS NOT ACTI12.8 AS A OURNAL10.9 A Churc6.4 her was as friend and advisor to Plaintiff6.1 publish book not as journalist Churc6.6 her ompted Plain-9.2 tiff5.8 to fabric-7.4 ate stories rding10.8 Prin-8.2 ce Churc6.9 her ompted Plain-8.9 tiff6.1 to invent stories ding7.8 Alan rshowitz-21.5 Churc6.8 her communica5.7 tions with Plaintiff5.9 2s Coun8.9 sel and for5.9 not news erin-8 activities-15.3 II16 THE TE GE THE LD AW NOT ICABL10 ECAUSE THERE WAS NO EXPECTAT-4.9 ON CONFI13.2 DENT-8 II6 THERE A COMPE-8.2 NEED F6 OR CHURCHER 2S DOCUMENTS AND A The nform-11.6 ation Soug9.6 ht om Churc6.4 is Hig9.6 Material and leva5.4 Churc6.5 her cuments testimon-11.4 critical Ms 2s truth def4.6 nse nd Plaintiff6.5 2s laims Churc6.7 her info-9.2 rmation nnot be obtained from an alterna6.7 tive sour-7.2 ce MS MAXW-5.2 2S COUNSE-10.2 GREED TO EXTE Ghislaine 7.5files this Response 12to Non Sha-5.8ron Churcher-6.6?s Motion to Qua5.6s0h Subpoena and states as 10follows:-9.5 INTRODUCTION Ms documents and testimon-11.4y19.6 Sharon Churcher that are6.9 c-5.1r.1itical to the of this sing8.1le c5.9ount de-7.1famation ca5.9se Churc6.9h-8.9e4r the person with much the information 11that will prove the truth The alleg9.4e3.2d 9press rele-7.8ase at issue in case states:-26.9 Each time the is told it chang9.7e3.5s with salacious details about p-10.3ublic and wo-7.3rld leaders-7.1 and now it is alleged Roberts that Alan De5.6rshowitz-8.4 is involved having7.8 relations with which he Ms Roberts claims are6.6 o-9.2bvious lies and should be treated and not as news as Churc6.8her is the sole source of inform-11.2ation reg10a-5.1rding11 the or5i-11.2g10inal stor-16y20 told Plaintiff6 and wa5.8s the author of first ar5ticles publishing7 9Plaintiff6?s c5.8laims She wa5.8s and involved in those stories ov-7.2er 6time a5.6nd in the creation addition of new salac5.3ious details about p-10.5ublic 7.1including7.5 fabri-11.7cation of Alan alleg9.7e3.5d sex-9u0al relations with Plai9.8ntiff6.-6.2 Sharon Churcher-6.6?s to avoid the ubpoena deposition and produ-9.4ction of documents based on the j-9.7ourna6.3list mu-9.5st fail for three 9reasons First much of the discover-16.4y19.6 is to news 8gatherin a-5.4c3.6tivities Rather Churcher 9as a fr6.1iend a5.9nd 9advisor to Plainti in Plaintiff6.6 eff5.5o-.5rts write and publish a boo-9.5k sensationaliz-5.6i-.7ng7.5 her in a mann-9.2er that wo-9.2uld best boost the publication and that of fiction role she 6helped manufacture of the stories that 9been denied 7and that are6.3 the 7centr-8.5al issues in this Case Document Filed Page of Second in ce5.5rtain instan-8.3ces Churc6.5he-5.5r 10also as source for info-8.6rmation to Plaintiff6?s c5.8ounsel and e5.5n-.3for-6.3cement agencies that she wa5.5s not in her as journali-14.4st.-7.9 thes-9e instances wa5.3s not for publication she wa5.6s providing7.8 she had Providing8.8 this informatio-15.1n to third parties waived 10.2ever to the 9ex-9.4tent that info-8.4rmation soug8.6ht covere6.4d qualified protec5.4t-.6ion of Civil Rig8.6h.6ts Ms provides a clear a6.7nd spe-6.3c3.7ific that the information is m-11.3a3.7terial or ant c-6.1r-.9itical 11or to the Ms 11truth defe6.4nse 5.9and not obtainab-7.4le from alte-5.6rna6.4ti ve As su-9.7ch the Shield requir-8.7e3.1s complianc5.3e3.3 with the these 9re6.3ason Mo-7tion to Quash should be denied a5.3nd Church-9.5er shou-7.5ld be compelled to 9with the Subpoena as modif-8.3ied ARG7.1U-8.5MENT I CHURCHER IS A WITN-6.5ESS AND 5.1WAS NOT AS A JOURNALIST The Ne5.7w Shield r4.9e3.7lied on 6is only applicable 9a prof5.2essional journalist is asked to disclose infor4.9mation rec-5.3e3.7ived in the of gathering or obtaining news for publi8.2c4.2ation of the information from Ch-5.9ur-7.4cher has nothing7.6 to do with information she c6.4o-.4llected in the 7course5.4 9of ne-5.6ws for publication Rather4.7 it to advice infor and communica5.7tions that she had with Plaintiff6 in her5 capacit-13.2y20 9as a f6r0ie4.9nd and 9advisor Section is not applica5.2ble wher-6.6e the journalist is ca7l led upon other to testify22.8 9with resp-10.2ect to observations detail couns5.3el th9.2at Subpoen6.2a2 to ab-5.6solu8.4te 11.9Civil is Case Document Filed Page of Solargen Elec Motor Car Corp Am Motors Corp Supp N.D.N.Y People Dupr-8.6ee 2d N.Y.S.2d Sup 7the privileg11.7e do-9.3es not ex-9.3ist if the newsman is called to this c5.9ount de-7.1famation ac5.9tion Churc6.9her being11.1 as witnes-7.7s to 9events that she observ-6.4e3.4d and in which 8she particip-6.2ate12.2d This ca5.7se is about whe5.2t-.8her the info-9.6rmation included in the Decemb er J-9.8o0inder Motion Ms called obvious lies were6.6 in lies These include all-13.4e3.6gations about Plaintiff5.8?s a5.6l-.4leged intera6.7ctions with Alan and Prin ce An-7.4drew specifica6.4ll-23.6y19.6 in Ms denial statement Not is Churc6.7he-5.3r that-9.3 the fals-12.1e she helped Plaintiff concoct the stories.-10.5 A Churcher acting as an6.5d advisor to 10help pu6.5blis9.5h h6.5er book not as journalist7 As set out in Churc6.8her?6s 10De5.8clarati on she first with Plaintiff6 in and conducted 9series of e5.3x-9.5tensive interv-6.5iew in per5.3s.5on with Plaintiff to a of publications in March 9of As Churche-5.6r sta ted her in these 8.5ar-6.7ticles was Prince Andr4.8ew After the inte-5.4rv-6.2iews and the publica5.6tion of 8.2the storie-7.4s Churc6.6her c6.7ontinued reg10u0lar5 9contac5.8t with Plaintiff6 as her6 and bu-9siness advisor See 8De6cl A Plaintiff5.8 to write a book and to publishing6.8 8.9contracts soon as her 8.9with the Mail on over in Menninger Decl A Churc6.6her r5.7ecommended of 6g9.8host wr4.8iters agents to Plaintiff5.8 for 9this purpose all as Plaintiff5.8?-.2s f4.8r-.2iend 9advisor and advoc-6.1ate Menn-6ing8e3.8r Ex-8 A in itiated conta-7.5c3.5t with the US Attorney19.7?-6.3s and on of Case Document Filed Page of Plaintiff6 setting10 up their initial meeting10 whe5.8 Churc6.6 her anned to be ent at that mee5.6 ting9.8 support not in capa-5.6 as a journalist Menninger Decl A Plaintiff6 did beg12 in writin-11 book and sent ons of manusc-6.2 ript to Churc6.7 her her ew nd comment again in her capa-5.5 a riend not as a journalist Menning7.7 ecl A Churc5.7 her also had tensive discussion with Plaintiff5.9 on the best strate-7.3 ies for e4 intere7.1 st in he-5 ok including8.2 dete-7 rmining10.2 en to me a4 mes Menninger Decl A She stra5.8 with Plaintiff6 and Plainti5.8 ff6 2s ouns-9.8 el B5 ad Edwa-5.2 ds on how to use potential F6 ir article as book publicit-11.4 dr opping8 mes of mous politicians claiming10 she traff5.6 ed ut refusin-9.4 to provide ditional information bec5.4 use she5.4 riting6.6 a book Menninger Decl A Throug9.7 of these communica5.5 tions between Plaintiff6 and Churcher is obvious that stories in the book later-5.9 to bec5.9 ome lleg10.1 tion in he oinder5.1 Motion created nd supported based on the ugg9.9 estions of Chur-7.1 cher They19.9 not repo-9.1 rted Plaintiff5.9 in her4.9 initial inter5 view or in Churcher-6 2s initial publication bec6.4 use did not er to icate stor5.5 garding ince whe5.8 Churc6.9 first reported on Plaintiff 2s stor-7 after just spent weeks interviewing10 Plaintiff6 in Austra5.8 lia and with a icular foc6.9 us on portin-10 Plaintiff6.2 2s meeting10.2 Prince Andre-5.6 Churc5.4 spe5.4 ific-6.6 port ed here6.4 is no suggestion that there ual contact betwe5.4 Virg12.6 inia and Andrew that Andr4.6 ew ew that pstein paid her4.6 to have5.4 with his friends Churc6.3 her cl Shortl-10 there-5 a4 fter Marc7 Churc6.6 her ail-6 Plaintiff5.8 plaining7.8 to her4.8 how she obor-6.2 ate to tell the F6 that she iven Princ4.6 Andrew Mennin-12.1 ecl A Churc5.6 her rovided an planation for how4.8 Plaintiff5.6 can substantiate the claim a claim not pre6.5 made5.5 Plaintiff6.9 Case Document Filed Page of The Motion is the first publica5.5tion of interaction between Plaintiff5.6 and Andrew so me po-9.3int between Churc6.6her requested that 9Plaintiff5.8 handwr4.8i-.4te a her 6alleg9.9e3.7d enc5.7ounter4.9s with Prince to the 5.5Churc6.7her Decla-5.3r-6.1ation at Ex-10.1hibit 8is an Articl subtitled Entries Of en D5.3e3.9tail Sorted With Prince Andrew He6.2r 9.5Own The4.2 9articl-8.9e claims to print ex-9.7ce rpts of a contempor-6.6aneous jo-9.6urnal kept Plaintiff6.1 she wa5.9s stating10.1 9a bombshel-11.6l-.6 world ex-7.4clusive Radar-6.4O-.2nline.c5.4o-.4m has obt-11.9ained the journ-6.7al-12 of the then to 11have with billionaire pedophile Epstein and his rich powe5.8r0f6u0l pals and it?s pa5.4cked with scandalous claims about 11her illicit including7.9 with Andr-6.1ew the fi-11.3fth in line to the B8.9r-.1itish throne D-6.6ecl This alleg11.8ed or was a fa6.9bric-7.1ated doc5.9ument Plaintiff6.1 at request 12and direction Churc6.2her Menninger Decl Ex-8 Plaintiff6.1 maintains she did not a this handwritten the source of the complete doc5.6ument and 9information about its cre6.3a3.2tion with the pe-5.8rson 7.3who the docum-11.8ent?s fabri-11.8cation Churcher there no of contact-11.3 with Prince as of how a5.6nd this first F6rom the e6.7mail it appears that Churc6.7her was in-11.1volved in inventing7.9 this the 7course5.7 stories book stories that would the inter4.9est p-9.2ublisher5.8s0 on the Prince wa5.4s first cr-6.4eated is evidence in this In7 actu8alit-9.2y7,-1 th8at destroy20e1.8d a bon8f10i1.8re in9 at a tim22.8e represe-9.4n7.8ted to as a Decl To th7.7e exten-5.3t th8.1at creation7.1 part it conf9.1idential,-11.9 and th8.1e test produ7.1ctio th8.4e potion7.4s4.6 is m7et th8.1e releva-12.1n7.1t to th8.1e def7.2e-12nse and availab-5.8le Case Document Filed Page of Chu-6.9rch-4.9er to stor5.9ies regarding Alan De5.9rshow-6.7i-.1tz Churc6.8her?5.9s dir-6.1ect involve-7.3ment in the a5.6l-.4le-5.4gations in the J-10o-.2inder Mot6.6i-.4on regardin-8.2g9.8 Plaintiff6.1?s a5.9l-.1leged sex-5.9u.1al inter5.1actions with Alan D-6.7e3.9rshowitz or even the k-7.8nowledge of na6.8me is ev-8.5en more Prior the Dec-5.7e3.4mber joi-13.7nder Motion there6.4 is not a sing8.7le mention of 9Mr Dershow itz in relat-9.1ed to Plaintiff6.1 publications dire6.7ctly19.9 she5.7 inte-5.3rview-6.9ed laintiff5.7 ther4.7e not a mention of Mr De6.1rshowitz-4.9..3 is quite appare7.1nt that Plaintiff had 9never met Mr 9De5.3rshow or r5.6e3.4ported he wa5.4s a person with whom she had had the ti5.5mef4.7ra6.6me Plaintiff 9and Churcher-6.3?s re5.5late primaril-10.2y20 to Plaintiff6?s draft of her nov-6el hirin-8g a 9g9.6hostwr4.6i-.6ter a6.5nd for on how to manag9.9e and book p-9.1ublication deals Decl A As a part of those communica5.9tions on Plaintiff6.1 wr5.1ites Churc6.9her hope message5.5 comes to on a took advice5.4 about wh-9.4at to Sandra 8.7g9.6hostwriter she acc-5.5epted We up a contract throu-9.3g9.7h now and 9getting7.7 to meet de-5.5adline if 9inform-11.6a3.4tion on when 9and interviews about the 9wa5.4nted to put of these 9assholes,-10.4 oops me-7.5ant to pe-5.4do?s that sent me to on bra6.6in like mush and it would be a of 9an dated Churc6.7her replies-9.9 to Plaintiff-8.3 forg9.8e3.6t 9and name pitch as he re6.3pped Claus von 9and a movie wa5.3s mad-8.5e a-5.7bout that ca5.3se title Reversa5.4l-.7 of F6.1o-.1rtune We all suspec5.7t 11Alan is a pedo and tho proof that met him he han-6.4g Menninger Decl A e-12m20ail raise-9s4.3 its6.4 prov7.2iding7.2 person7.2al to req-5.7u7.3ire been7.3 to did Chu7.9r-1.1cher prov7.9ide to basis6.8 as oppos5ed to ba sed to Case Document Filed Page of Sometime ther4.9 eafter Plaintiff did inser5.9 Mr owitz-7.3 2s me in her book manusc4.8 ript but she did not alleg9.9 ere6.7 in that she had ual relations with him rather4.9 she simpl-13.3 ferr5.9 ed to him as a busin-9.1 ss quaintan-9.6 ce of Epstein 2s wa not until the oinder Motion in Decembe-7.9 that claimed she al relations with Mr Dershowitz-5.8 something9.5 he amantl-21.7 and publicl-11.7 nied-7.7 At the art of this se the question of whe5.7 ther ll defa6.8 med Plaintiff calling7.7 liar rse5.5 if Plaintiff is a liar ther4.8 is no defa6.6 matio-11.2 Churcher direct and actual knowledg10.1 at Plaintiff6.1 is a li ar and helped orchestrat-12 ecific a6 nd cre6 ible public lies in concert Plaintiff5.8 relating7.8 to nce Andrew nd Alan Dershowitz both of these instances Churc6.2 is not ting9.7 as a journal-11.5 ist she is acting9.3 as a nd and advisor to Plaintiff6 on how to drop names truth be damned-7.4 to to sell Plaintiff6.5 book A Churc6.8 her puts it the ntive-5.7 eadlines cash Mennin-11 Decl Ex-8 A Churc6.9 her is not a journalist she is a conspir-5.9 tor in Plaintiff6.1 2s publica5.9 tion of lse statements rding11.1 numerous people includi-13.7 Prince-5.7 Andre-5.7 Alan De rshowitz-5.1 and Ms is the nial of the mator-16.5 claims Churc6.3 her ed eate at is the basis of this defamation suit There6.9 is no porter shield these factual matter6.1 are6.5 not lated to new gather4.7 ing7.7 er 2s th Plai-4.8 el rcemen-4.5 are not gathering activities-12.9 Churc6.8 her lso admits to communica5.8 ting10 with Bra6.8 Ed-8 rds ow Plaintiff 2s counsel and other4.4 for Plaintiff5.4 which co munications continue throug10.8 the ent See Churc6.2 cl Churc6.9 her is the on who initiall-11.1 put Plain-8.9 tiff6.1 in contact with Edwards Mennin-11.5 cl A Churc5.3 her ed Plaintiff5.5 on how to use Edwards to provide information to porters in a manne5.5 at would best help her4.7 ok sales See Menninger4.9 Decl A rding10.9 to laintiff5.9 she reg9.9 information from Case Document Filed Page of Edwards with she 9could not the 11privileg11.7ed information she shar5.6ed 10.1Menninger4.6 Decl None5.7 of the 10communica5.7tions or corre6.2s-.5pond-10.7ence 9with Edwards or of Plaintiff?s other in news 8.6and not the Shield Churc6.6he-5.5r 9corr-6.3esponded the and US Plaintiff5.7 and states is not ac5.7ting9.9 in journalistic Menninger Decl A Communica5.9tions that that were6.9 not forwa5.9rde6.9d c6.9opies to Plaintiff5.6 have not pr-6.4oduced Church-9.4er specif-8.4ica states she like to be treated a confidential source information Id She is not gathering news she is attempting7.6 to assist law e5.8n-1.6forcement and providing10 them with info rmation she has this is not news 9and not 11re6.5lated to confidential source Even if there6.7 some claim of qualified shared infor with the or law e5.7n-9.1for5.9cement ther4.5e is a of p-9.5rotection of the Shield See Guic-5.4e-Mills Fo-7.2rbes Misc 3d N.Y.S.2d Sup Ct professi onal journ-6.5alist waived the ex-9.5emption of the Shield if 9voluntaril-10.5y19.7 disclose 9co-9.3nsent to disclosure of otherw4.9ise information to third pa6.9rties None5.4 of the do-9.4cuments or information descri above is cover-6.3e3.5d the New York Shield Churcher 6.3was not th process R-4.9e2.9gardless the-6r-.9e is no proof that any of information 5.5soug8.8ht 9Ms in the subp8.8oena is confidential information from a source nor it intended kept confident The requ-9.9ested information must be produced and Chur-6.4cher as her5.6 is cri-24.4t-.6ical to the truth defe6.8nse in this Case Document Filed Page of II THE ABSO9LUTE P12RIV4.4ILEG9E THE SHI8.4ELD LAW IS NOT BECAUSE THERE W9.5AS EXP13.3E-1.5CTATION CON-6.3F11.3I-16D.7ENTIALITY As with all attempts to bl7.7ock the discover-16.1y19.9 information burden re6.7sts upon the invokin-8.9g10.1 to demonstra6.9t-.1e-7.1 that the mater5.1ial is privilege A.D.2d N.Y.S.2d To rais-13.3e a of privileg11.6e und-9.4er this statute the information must be imparted to the under Ther-6.7e to be understa ex-9.1press or implied that the infor5.9mation will not be disclosed People 8Bova Misc 2d N.Y.S.2d Sup Ct He5.7nnigan Buffalo Courier Express Co Inc A.D.2d The confidential relationship 11with the sourc5.3e must fi be established in order to deter4.7m-.5ine the intere6.6st to be ba5.6lan-7.2ced a-5.4g-.2ainst that of a civil litig7.8a-5.4nt Full disclosure is the 11rule and the burde6.9n of showin-11g10 immunit-11.2y20 from disclosure5.8 is the asse-7.2rting9 it People LeGrand A.D.2d Matter of FM Proskin N.Y.S.2d Matter of Davis Misc.2d N.Y.S.2d Churc6.5her a6.5d-.3mits that her4.7 9conversa5.5t-.5ions and 9co mmunica6.2tions with Plaintiff6.4 not with 9ex-9.4pectation of confidentialit-11.6y19.6 the opposite The ex-9.6press reason for4.4 the communica5.8tion wa5.8s to obtain press coverag10e3.8 9and to cause the publications the series articles written and publi-13.6s-.2hed Chur-6.4cher Plaint-11.6i-.6ff wa5.4s paid ov-8.4er to on re6.5spec6.5t to of inform-11.6ation over Chur-7.4cher 6clai-9.6ms an absolute?5.8 privile-5.2ge there is no issue Ms is not seeking8 this inf-9o0rmation that there6.4 in wh-9.4ich Churc6.4her 10attributes information-5.9 to a confidential sourc-5.4e Ms does not to compel documents to these limited individuals to the 10the information and sour ce wa5.7s not later and will not question Case Document Filed Page of Churc6.2her on thes-12.1e source-5.8s-.4 ex-6.6cept to determine lat-9.5er been ident-9.5i-.5fied with their permission The undersi-9.8g9.4ned info-8.6rmed Ms Chur-6.6cher 7counsel in their co-9.8nferral that she would not seek information to conf4.8idential Respec7ting10.2 id-10.8entified Churc7.1h-8.8e4r fa to carr-13y20 the burden-9 of showin-9g10 that there wa5.5s an e6.5x-9.3pectation of which is her bur5.7den to in her4.7 she a6.8d0mits that she had with Plainti5.8ff6?s Edw-5.8a3.8rds a5.8nd law enforcement agencies were not intende5.8d to be 7kept confidential See C-12.9hurc5.9her 6De4.9cl articles she identifies the s-9.1ourc6.5es of inform-11.5ation demonstrating9.7 the lac5.8k of P-12.8laintiff6 the bu-9rde6.8n c6.9laiming 8.9absolute privileg11.2e und-9.8er I THERE IS A C5.1OMP13.7ELLIN NEED 9C-6.7H-.1URCHER DOCUM-4.8E-1.7NTS AND TESTIMONY8.8 Ha5.7ving7.9 9fa6.7iled to establis-10.9h the e5.7ssential element confidentialit-11.1y20.1 Chur-5.9c3.9her a6.9t-.1tempts to claim a qua5.6lified prote-7.4ction Matter of Sullivan Misc 2d N.Y.S.2d Sup Ct sour4.4ce no understandin-11.6g9.4 or 6ex-9.6pectation of with either4.4 Mr or the polic-5.8e dete-7.8ctives view ing7.7 of the 9Consequentl-13.5y19.7 there is no absolute privileg11.5e 9which protec5.3ts the movant-9.7 10materials,-12.7 see Civil and therefore p-9.9rotection be to the journalistic material of qualified Chur)-6.7cher relies on qualified p-9.2rotection to non 7.1published news information Ms Max-6.1w.1ell make5.7 a 5.6clear a6.7nd showing8.9 that the information is material and releva5.5n-.3t an critical to the claim or def-6.7e3.1nse and not obtainable from 9alterna6.1tive Matte-4.7r.6 of Sullivan Misc 2d N.Y.S.2d Sup Ct Civil Rig8.5h.5ts As discussed above this pro-7.1vision is applic-5.3able journalist is in a Case Document Filed Page of Ms prof5.6fers the followin-9.4g9.6 a6.4nd specifi-10.6c3.4 es-10.2tablishing7.6 ea-5.6ch of these elements production of the info rm-11.4ation soug8.8ht and de5.7positi-13.4on of A is Material-4.7 Direct-7.5ly Re5.8levant-9 This is a about not all-8e-5.5g-.3ations in the J-8.1o-.3inder Motion were6.5 lies in particular the 9claims Ms Prince Andr4.5ew 6.5and Alan 14.3which are6.3 the spec7ific items that were7 d-8.8e4nied in Ms press rele-8.4ase information soug9.9ht from Churc6.7her is m-11.3a3.7terial in proving8.9 that that time the is told salac5.7ious are the a5.7l-.3leged it could be the most 9probative eviden-7.6ce in this dete-7.4rmining9.8 wh-7.2ether4.8 8.8the has made clea5.6r 5.8and specifi-10.4c3.6 that the information soug10.1ht is or to defe6.8nse this cou-7r0t should not substitute its judg7.3ment for 9a on the qu-9.7estion eviden-7.7ce is and critical to a Matter of Sullivan Misc 2d N.Y.S.2d Sup Ct quoting9.1 United States 9Sanusi F6.1.0Supp U.S.Dist.Ct.E.D.1992 Starting10.1 with Ms Churc6.9her?6.1s a-5.4r-.2ticles 9conflict with the in the Motion and P8.3laintiff6.2?s testimon-10.8y in this case 10orig7.8inal a-5.4r-.2ticle re7.1ports the re-5garding11.2 Plaintiff?s f5.2i0rst visit to Mr Epstein?s mansion tr-6aining10 9and be Vir-6g10inia?s ga6.8ve his blessin-11.1g9.9 his the opport-8unit-23.5y19.7 to learn skill and to work a and drove to Epstein?s-10 pink mansion on the Palm wa5.6te-7.4rf5.8ront Virg13inia Ghislaine-7.2 said to star5t immediatel-11.2y20 9and that someone 9would drive me er left and told to upstairs She was led by another throug10.3h Epstein?s into a massage room 11where6.2 f-6.7ace do-9.7wn 7naked on a Case Document Filed Page of started to interview This was un-10.2conv-9.2entional but Virg12.8inia no suspicions 8.8she thoug10.9ht this was the condu-9.1cted 6.8their business Epstein elicited the infor-6.5mation that Virg10.5inia had 9been a 9and no long7.9er 6a Vir-8.1g9.9inia then told to star4.9t Epstein unde5.8r2 the5.7 instructio10.7n-2.1s of the who 10show7.7n her in The developed into a Churc6.6her Decl See also 7.5Churc6.8her 6De5.8cl Ex-8 Churc6.7her late-7.3r that Ms hired for Epstein this Ms escorted Plaintiff to meet Mr Epstei-9.3n but nowhere6.7 9claims that Ms in int7.7e3.7ra6.7ction with Plaintiff6.1 at time 15.8Churc6.3her 6De5.3cl The J-9.8o0inder5 Motion allege5.8s.2 that it was Ms that took Plaint7.8i-.2ff to Mr Epstein?s room on her visit to the mansion and 9pa-5.3rticipated in a inter4.9action a never befor5.7e Obviousl-12.5y19.7 notes interviews and re7leva5.9n.1t to Plaintiff6.1?s about Ms an how it has chang9.5e3.3d 9and morphed over time as well as the 8motivation for those The alleg11.8ation that mutated with time in Churc6.7her?5.8s and the Motion re6.7lates to Plaintiff5.9?s ag9.9e she 9first Epstein and the amount of time she spent him f5.2i0rst she pu-8.8blished that Plaintiff6.2 first met Epstein in soon after her th 9and work-9.6ed for5.4 him four 6De5.2cl Ex-8 The Motion that Plaintiff6 met Epstein in when she the a6.7nd the of 8.9material to this Plaintiff6.2 now a6d.2mits that she did not mee6t Epstein in but rather5.2 met hi-11m in which wa4.9s the 8.9worked at the Plaintiff6.1?s about meeting10.1 Epstein in or and her of be6.8ing8 lies 10Plaintiff6 still claims how12.2ever that she old at the time she 9met Epstein 8De5.5cl eff5.7o-.3rts to obtain Case Document Filed Page of re6.4cords the Mar-A have no of Plaintiff?s da5.5tes of 9emplo-9.3y19.7ment to establish the timef4.9ra6.7me 7Churc6.7her is a witness information the month when Plaintiff5.9 claims to have5.6 met Epste-7.4i-.4n i.e soon after her in 11of now a5.6d-.2mitting7.8 Plaintiff5.9 w-6.9ould have5.7 been 9at the Other information in Churc6.8her?5.9s possession is the identific4.8a3.7tion of documents and info-7rmation Plaintiff6 wa5.8s shown by Churcher includi-11.1ng10.1 pictures or other 6witness statements For inst ance based on email co-7.5rr5.5espo-10.5ndence it app-9.5e3.3ars that Churc6.8her was in possession of Epstein?s Ther-6.1e is no indica-5.3tion that Plaintiff5.9 had seen those pri-9.6or to meeting9.6 Chur-6.4ch er 6Plaintiff5.7 never me4.6ntions 10certain that appear in the 9flig8.7ht 10prior to with in ex-8.9ample Clinton is in the flig ht Plaintiff6.2 never m-8e4.1ntioned or re6.6fere6.6nc-5.4es Pre6.6s0ident Clinton Yet 9and of thin air Plaintiff allegedl-21.4y19.8 repo-9.2rts to Churc6.8her in that sh-9e met B7i-.2ll Clinton twice and that Ms flew Pre7s.3ident Clinton on a helicopter to Mr Ep-9.6stein?s a ha5.3s since be-5.7en 9discredited as a lie This is one 9ex-9.2ample of na6.7mes a4.7nd that 9ad-9.2ded to Plaintiff5.8?s su-8.2gg9.8estive questi-14.5oning7.7 and documents to Plaintiff6.1 The perso-6.9n.1 who this relev-7.2ant matter in-8.2cluding9.8 wh-7.2at documents shown Plaintiff6 is Churc6.7her 12re6.7ported Plaintiff5.9 wa5.7s sent E-8.3p-.1stein a5.7nd Epstein alone-7.3 to meet with men including10 we5.8ll businessman preg9.9n-.1ant wa5.7s in the room world a respe-6.6c3.3ted liberal politician and a h-9.5ead state Churc7h-8.8e4.1r De3.8cl By20 9contra4.9st the J-9.8o0inder5 Motion allege5.8s.2 Epstein also 12traff5.4ick-7.6ed Doe5.2 for p7.8u-.2rposes to other4.8 men includin-11.2g9.8 nu-9.2mer4.8ous prominent Case Document Filed Page of American politicians business pr-6.5esidents a Prime Minister a6.4nd other world-11.5 6Decl Ex-8 Plai-9.2ntiff6 has not identified any pr-6.6esidents a 7prime minister forei-11.8g 9head of state 7a scientist or numer5ous prominent A-8.8mer5ica5.8n Politicians?4.9 in her5 Rule disclosures in 12this ca6.9se So the question is who did Plai10.2ntiff6.4 identif-7.6y20.4 to Churc in and how has changed and ex-9.4panded over time can provide information.-15.2 Churc6.8her?5.9s public-7.3ations in Marc6.7h of the first publica5.7tion contai-9.3ning7.9 the now publiciz-7.7ed picture-5.7 of Plaintiff with Prince Andr4.8ew Plaintiff well paid for picture and continued to on the re6.7prints multiple requests Pl7.4aintiff has not been able to produce the native ve5.4rsio-9.4n of the picture or the sp-8.4ecific it wa5.3s taken that Churc6.3her the fi-17.8rst source to print the and later with the to provide i-11.6n-.4formation she is 9the pe5.4rson who has p-9.4hoto or knows the chain of of the pi-11.4cture Either information including9.8 the and loca5.6tion the picture5 wa5.6s is person 7who able to provide the information to track dow-7.1n the picture or it The interview notes memos and othe-5.5r 6documentation in possession Plai-8.8ntiff6.4 are6.6 material and to Plaintiff5.7?s fa6.2bric-7.8ation and ex-9.6pansion of c6.2laims if Plaintiff Churc6.6her that she met but did not relations-7.4 with Prince Andrew in the state-7.4ment in the J-7.8o0inder5 Motion is a li8.8e Given 5.1that reported that there is no i-10.4ndica5.6tion of intera6.8ction with Prince in Ch-9.4urcher 5.8can testimon-9.4y19.6 or re6.8flecting8.3 the b-7a3.8sis for th-11at published statement.-6.5 Case Document Filed Page of Churcher?s 7and testim12.4ony cri-11.8tical to Ms Maxw-7.4ell?s and P12.9l1.8aintif6f?s As stated in the Motion to the a5.5nd critica4.6l or to the 10claim or of test for4.5 a qualifi-8.7ed pr overlap this co-9.2unt def4.8a3.6mation ac5.6tion is As-8 can be se-6.3en the clea5.2r 6and specifi-10.8c3.2 abov-9.6e all of the info rmation soug9ht fr-6.8om Churcher is critical to the defe6.9nse substantial is well settled that trut-10.4h is an absolute a claim of defa6.7mation Unde5.7r Ne5.7w York law it is well-settle-7.2d0 that truth is an a6.8b0solute unqua5.8lified def-6e3.9nse to a civil defamation action is 10an fu-9.5ndamental concept that ubstantial truth suffice5.4s-.2 defe6.4at of libel Holdings-3.3 Inc Supp S.D.N.Y interna6.8l quotations and citations omitted the role of Chur-6.6cher-6.6?s testimon-11.6y19.4 and do-9.6cuments to this defense it is important to look the actual of that press statement-8::7.6 Each time the is re it cha5.5nge with new details about pu-10.1blic and wo-7.3rld leaders-7.1 and now it is alleged Roberts that Alan De5.8rshowitz-7.1 is involved having8 relations with w5.2h0ich Ms Roberts claims are6.4 o-9.4bvious lies and should be treated and not publiciz-7.5ed as as As demonstrated 9Ms Churc6.6her?5.8s do-10.2cumen-7.2ts and testimon-9.2y19.8 criti-14cal establi-3.4shing the f-5.2act ti-4.4me Pl-4.4aint-4.4iff has her new salacious details are 9added Churc7.1her that her5.2 testimon-8.8y20.2 is releva6.4n.6t to Plaintiff6.6?s While a journalist testimon-10.9y20.1 to impeac hment or of 6a normally be critica5l it is Plaintiff6.1?s or lack is the 9centr-7.9al issue in the This is not impe-5.6achment 9evidenc5.4e3.4 it is the of the case Plaintiff is a de-5.6fe6.5nse Case Document Filed Page of truth is established it es-5.6tablishes that there6.5 be no 10.2caused the stat-10.5ement Chur-6.5cher-6.5?s and testimon-11.5y19.5 cen-9.5tral to this issue.-8.7 Chu-6.7rch-4.7er?s 8.5cannot be obtained an alternative Churc6.4her that ther-6.4e are6.4 sources for4.6 information soug9.6ht 11citing7.6 almost Plaintiff5.3 as the potential source information This arg9.9u-9.1ment is flawed for5.9 two re6.8asons Plaintiff6 claims that she does not have much of5 the in-9for6mat-9.2ion soug10ht or can r-8.5e3.3member her d-6.5e3.3position she said she ca-5.7nnot remember photog7.5r-6.5a3.3ph is the 7contract is what she told Churc6.5her she upon 9of counsel to state stories Churche-5.4r got Motion to Re-Ope6n D-6.6e4position of Plaintiff6.2 Second as the direct in this case Plaintiff6 is no a reliable for info-8.4rmation and thus cannot be deemed 7an altern-7ative 9sourc4.8e Matter of Sulliva-6.8n Misc 2d N.Y.S.2d Sup Ct compelling9.8 jou-7.4rna6.6list notes r-7.2eco rds and interr5.6o-9.4g9.6ation claimed a5.2l-.8tern-6.6ative source of information dete-7.5ctives conductin-9.3g9.7 the inter4.7r-6.3og9.7ation adversaries and thus coul-11.8d not be de5.2e med the 9re6.2liable source informatio-11.6n most information Churc6.8h0er is the only sour-7.5ce 9of the information She is the person 7who the following9.8 info-8.2r-6.2mation and doc5.6uments:-14.2 The 9fa6.3bric-7.7ated and testimon-21.5y19.5 on wh-7.5en and it wa5.3s 10create-7.6d Notes transcr5.3i-.9ptions tap-7.7e and mem-9.6or-6.3andum from her inte-5.5rviews with Plaintiff5.8 including7.8 her week interviews in A-8u-.2stralia Churc6.5her?5.6s 10communica5.4tions with law enfor-6.4cemen-7.4t or the Plaintiff6.8 th8.5e origin8.5al to did a produ6.8ced email reg-5.7u7.3lar deletio-4.7n7.3 t-9h7.2ere are e-12m8ail co-17.8m8m8unicatio-4.8ns P-7.7laintiff6.2 Ms or Ne verth8.1eless to bu7.1rden Ms Maxw12.3ell ill e-12m8ail Chu6.4r-2.6cher B-5.2e1.7cause accou8.3n-2.7t an8.3d recentl-6.9y20.3 produ8.3ced acco-5.4un7.6t Ms Chu7.7r-1.3cher to or at Maxw12.5ell a a respon7.3se Case Document Filed Page of Plaintiff6.6 2s ontract with he Mail on Sunday16.2 whic Plaintiff6 claims she no long8 er has The nal Prince ew picture informatio-11.5 on its cha6.3 of custod-12.5 Communica5.9 tions with ra7 Edwards and other5.1 attorne-15.1 for5.1 Plaintiff rom a testimonial stand-9.3 point Chur-6.3 cher can testif-9.3 about the viations in the stories she has ard laintiff because Churcher ther-5.4 Plain tiff herself claims she cannot rememb-9.3 er at she told Churc6.5 her us points in time nd herse5.5 lf asked Chur-6.3 cher for5.8 the notes rom her rview so Plaintiff5.8 could member wha5.6 she said Menninger4.8 Decl A Plaint5.5 iff further4.7 fuse5.5 to testif-16.3 out what information Churc6.5 her rinted that untrue6.7 or ried what Plaintiff5.9 told Chu6.9 her er ecl Thus the rson can testif-16.3 or cumentar-16.6 ence Plaintiff5.4 2s stories to Churc6.9 her is Churc6.9 ht of the critical ure of the4.7 cuments testimon-9.2 in establishing6.8 the truth defe6.8 nse and the fact that the information simpl-11.2 is not ava5.8 lable f5 rom othe-6.2 sourc5.9 es Churc6.9 is not entitled to claim qualified ivilege5.9 over athe-7.1 ring mater5.1 ials or non-published non confidential information.-11.3 IV MS MAXWEL-5.3 2S COUNSE is ation7.1 been7.1 ested disco-17.9 to lain8.2 ti-7 no docu-4.8 e2 been8.2 produ8.2 ced Ms Maxw13.3 ell bpoen6.1 ed tion8.1 lain8.1 ff attorn8.1 each6.1 a2 to a ere can7.1 be estio-15.9 at ell possible sou7.5 ce obtain7.5 this-5.3 ation7.5 Case Document Filed Page of and the de5.5position would be sche6.5duled 7at a time As there is no basis for5.5 quashin-12.5g9.5 the subpoen-9.5a3.3 based on the 7?unre ason-10.6able time as 8Churc6.3her was on notice that she would be the time n-7.4eeded to 11obtain the doc5.4uments of discover-16.6y19.4 in this case how-7.4e3.2ver if 9a mo tion to quash was forthcomi-11.6ng9.6 the to be r4.9e3.7solved to permit c-8.3o-.1mpletion of for the r-6.3easons Ms requests that the Court Motion to Qua5.6s0h and co-9.2mpel deposition and the Production of-7 Shar-6.2ron Churche-5.3r-.2 pursua5.6nt to the subpoena,-9.2 as modified 9.4footnote Da5.7ted J-9.9une Respec7tfull-12y20.2 submitted,-13.4 Laura A Menninger A pro hac 10vice ADDON ORGAN OREM-9.5AN P.C East th Ave5.1nue De5.5nver CO Phone Fax-14 lmenning7.4er-6.6 hmflaw.c5.2o-9.6m Attorneys for Ghislaine Max6.8well-7.3 Case Document Filed Page of CERTIF11.4ICATE SERVI-7.9C2.8E that on served this RESPONSE TO SHARON CHURCHER 7MOTION TO QUASH4.8 via ECF5.8 on following9.6:-.6 Sig8.1r.1id McCawle-15.1y7.4 Mer7.1e4.9dith Schultz-7.4 LEX-13.3NER East Olas Ste smccawle-15.8y19.4 7bs-9.4fllp.com mschultz-4.9 bsfllp.com9.5 Paul Cassell-6 Universit-11.7y19.5 Street Salt UT cassellp law.utah.-9.7e3.1du Edwards F6.4A.4RMER EDW-5A.4RDS FI13.9STOS North Andrews Ste brad pathtojustice5.5.com-14.1 S7.2tanley21 Potting9e-4.2r-9 Twin Rd South Salem NY StanPotting10.1e3.9r aol.com Nicole Simmons Nicole Simmons5.7 Case Document Filed Page of
