Court hearing on procedural objections in Giuffre defamation case

10 id. 12 13 14 L5 16 ne) 18 life) 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 H3VOGIU1 Of course, we would want to explain that there were nine separate reasons why those allegations were included. Judge Marra referred to the first of the nine reasons. We have eight other additional reasons why those were included. It would essentially, again, be a mini trial about, well, what does a joinder motion mean? Did you file under Rule 15? It should have been under Rule 21. What did the judge do? It has no bearing at all on the issues in the case, and it, of course, has very substantial prejudicial effect because it leads to a confusion of the jury. The jury's trying to figure out, well, what's going on in the Crime Victims Rights Act case when the issue is whether or not Ms. Giuffre defamed. Now, there is an issue in their pleadings. They say, well, this could end up being relevant because there might be some kind of a privileged setting issue. Again, I think your Honor correctly was pointing out a moment ago, if things show up in the trial, it's possible that something could change, but we don't anticipate that becoming an issue in the trial at this point. If the issue of whether this was a privileged setting somehow becomes an issue in the case, then it would be time to revisit that during the trial. In any event, issues of whether this was a privileged setting or not aren't litigated in front of the jury, that's a legal issue for your Honor to determine whether the setting was SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011343