96 H3vlgiu2 ih THE COURT: Well, what do you say about the case 2 that's been cited? 3 MS. SCHULTZ: Well, about Adelson? I would say that 4 it's factually distinguished because here she is two days later 5 reiterating her defamatory statement. And I would also direct 6 you to the case in my brief, Wheelings v. Iacuone. 7 THE COURT: Let me just get the time frame right. 8 MS. SCHULTZ: Sure. 9 THE COURT: The initial statement is January, and when 10 is this? apa: MS. SCHULTZ: So, your Honor, the email that went to 12 the media, it was first issued on January 2, 2015; it was 13 published on January 3, 2015; and the statement took place the 14 next day, on January 4, 2015. 15 THE COURT: Okay. 16 MS. SCHULTZ: A recent opinion in this district, the de Wheelings case, makes it clear that you can't reargue summary 18 judgment on a motion in limine and also makes it clear that you 19 can't say, oh, because one person -- 20 THE COURT: The issue is, was the second statement 21 defamatory? 22 MS. SCHULTZ: I think that was an issue at summary 23 judgment that Ms. Giuffre opposed in its entirety, and I think 24 that's already been resolved. 25 THE COURT: How? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011399