1
Plaintiff, Virginia L. Giuffre, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Stay, and in support thereof, states as follows:
I. BACKGROUND
This is a single-count defamation case, turning on whether Defendant defamed Ms.
Giuffre by calling her a liar when Ms. Giuffre publicly reported the sexual abuse she suffered as
a minor child. Ms. Giuffre has propounded narrowly tailored discovery that goes to the heart of
the defamation, but rather than respond, Defendant has moved for a stay of all discovery pending
her Motion to Dismiss.
Defendant’s public, defamatory attack on Ms. Giuffre is an unabashed effort to bully this
sexual assault victim into silence. This is an old story. Defendant is calling Ms. Giuffre a “liar”
to deflect attention from her own conduct. Defendant’s main argument is that discovery should
be stayed because Defendant will be successful on her Motion to Dismiss as her defamatory
statements are protected by certain qualified privileges. The case law is clear that the qualified
privileges do not apply if a speaker deliberately published a false defamatory statement or if the
statements are outside the scope of the qualified privilege because their purpose was to bully,
harass, and intimidate. Ms. Giuffre is entitled to discovery to prove that not only were the
Defendant’s defamatory statements false, but also that she knew they were false.
The publicly-available information convincingly proves that Defendant’s statement that
she was not involved in the abuse of Ms. Giuffre is false. Overwhelming evidence – including
documents, witness testimony, and even photographs of Defendant - not only clearly corroborate
Ms. Giuffre’s report of the sex abuse, but also, importantly, show Defendant’s deep and
persistent participation. And obviously, because Defendant herself was helping orchestrate the
Case 1:15-cv-07433-RWS Document 20 Filed 12/10/15 Page 6 of 26
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: