Case 1:16-cv-05671 Document 3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 1 of 9

LINITEDUNITED STATESSTATES DISTRICTDISTRICT COURTCOURT SOUTHERNSOUTHERN DISTRICTDISTRICT OFOF NEWNEW YORKYORK

ROGERROGER AILES,AILES,

PetitionerPetitioner No.No. _ _ _ _ _

v. ECFECF CaseCase

GRETCHENGRETCHEN CARLSON,CARLSON,

Respondent.

PETITIONER ROGER AILES'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF HIS PETITION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

EPSTEINEPSTEIN BECKERBECKER && GREEN,GREEN, P.e.P.C. QUINNQUINN EMANUELEMANUEL URQUHARTURQUHART && SULLIVAN,SULLNAN, LLPLLP

lsilsl David W.W. GarlandGarland JohnJohn B.B. QuinnQuinn (proQtro hachac vicevice motionmotionforthcoming) forthcoming) RonaldRonald M.M. GreenGreen SusanSusan R.R. EstrichEstrich (pro(pro hachac vicevice motionmotion forthcoming)forthcoming) DavidDavid W.W. GarlandGarland JamesJames R.R. AspergAsperger r th BarryBarry AsenAsen 865865 S.S. FigueroaFigueroa Si.,St., 101Oth FloorFloor 250250 ParkPark AvenueAvenue LosLos Angeles,Angeles, CaliforniaCalifornia 9001794017 NewNew York,York, NewNew YorkYork 1017710177 Telephone:Telephone: (213)(213) 443-3000443 -3000 Telephone:Telephone: (212)(2t2) 351-4500351 -4500

AttorneysAttorneys forfor PetitionerPetitioner RogerRoger AilesAiles

FIRM:3FIRM:37652788v1 7652788v 1 Case 1:16-cv-05671 Document 3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 2 of 9

TABLET ABLE OFOF CONTENTSCONTENTS

Page

TABLETABLE OFOF AUTHORITIESAUTHORITIES .,.,...... "...... ii

PRELIMINARYPRELIMINARY STATEMENTSTATEMENT ...... 1

ARGUMENTARGUMENT

THISTHIS COURTCOURT SHOULD COMPELCOMPEL ARBITRATIONARBITRATION ININ ACCORDANCEACCORDANCE WITHWITH MS. CARLSON'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTAGREEMENT AND SHOULD STAY ALL FURTHER JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS...... PROCEEDINGS ...... 3

A. Federal Law Requires That Arbitration Provisions Be Enforced.Enforced ...... 3 3

B. Ms. Carlson's Arbitration Agreement Is Both Applicable and Enforceable.Enforceable ...... "...... 4 .4

CONCLUSION.CONCLUSION ...... 6

FIRM:37652788v\FIRM:37652788v1 Case 1:16-cv-05671 Document 3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 3 of 9

TABLETABLE OFOF AUTHORITIESAUTHORITIES

Page

A.A. CASESCASES

AT&TAT&T Techs.,Techs., Inc.Inc. v.v. Commc'nsCommc 'ns \4/orkersWorkers ofof America,America, 475475 U.S.U.S. 643643 (1986)(1986) ...... ,4 .4

BleumerBleumer v.v. Parlo,vayParkway Ins.Ins. Co,,277Co., 277 N.J.N.J. Super.Super. 378378 (Law(Law Div.Div. 1994)1994) ...... 5 5

Campaniello ImportsImports Ltd.Ltd. v.v. SaporitiSaporiti ltaliaItalia S.p.A.,1S.p.A., 117 17 F.F. 3d3d 655655 (2d(2d Cir.Cir. 1997) ...... ,4.4

Circuit City Stores, Inc,Inc. v. Adams,532Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001)(2001) ...... 3

a Dean Witter Reynolds,Reynolds, Inc.Inc. v. Byrd,470Byrd, 470 U.S. 213 (1985)'..'...'.,(1985) ...... 3

Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991)...... '(1991) ...... 3

Hirschfield Productions, Inc. v. Mirvish,2ISMirvish, 218 A.D.2d 567 (1st Dep't 1995), aff'd,afJ'd, 5 88 N.Y.2d 105410s4 (1996) ...... 5

Marcus v. Frome,275Frome, 275 F. Supp. 2d 496496 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ...... 44

Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.,lnc.,473 473 U.S. 614 (1985)(1985)...' ...... 3J

â Moses H.H Cone Memorial Hasp.Hosp. v.v, Mercury Constr. Corp.,Corp.,460 460 U.S. 1 (1983)(19S3)..'...... 3

5 Pritzker v. MerrillMeruill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith,Smith,lnc'7 Inc., 7 F.3dF'3d 1110 (3d Cir. 1993) ...... 5

RobyRobyv. v. Corp. of Lloyd's, Lloyd's,996F.2d1353 996 F.2d 1353 (2d(2dCir. Cir. 1993)1993) ...... 4,.4,5 5

ThomasThomas v.v, Public Storage,Storøge, Inc.,Lnc.,957 957 F.F. Supp.Supp. 2d2d496 496 (S.D.N.Y.(S'D.N.Y' 2013)2013) ...... 55

5 TracindaTracinda Corp.Corp, v.v. DailmerChryslerDailmerChrysler AG,AG, 502502 F.3dF '3d 212212 (3d(3d Cir.Cir' 2007)2007) ...... 5

B.B. STATUTESSTATUTES

FederalFedçral ArbitrationArbitration Act,Act, 99 U.S.C.U.S.C. §$ 11 eter seqseq...'....'." ...... 3

NewNew YorkYork CityCity HumanHuman RightsRights Law,Law, N.Y.C.N.Y.C' Adm.Adm. CodeCode §$ 8-1078-107 ...... 11 55

iill FIRM:37652788v\FIRM:37652788v1 Case 1:16-cv-05671 Document 3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 4 of 9

PRELIMINARYPRELIMINARY STATBMENTSTATEMENT

InIn JuneJune 2013,Iìespondent2013, Respondent GretchenGretchen Carlson,Carlson, aa well-knownwell-known cablecable televisiontelevision newsnews anchoranchor employedemployed byby thethe FoxFox NewsNews Network,Network, LLCLLC ("Fox("Fox News")News") inin Manhattan,Manhattan, enteredentered intointo aa multi-millionmulti-million dollar,dollar, three-yearthree-year employmentemployment agreementagreement (the(the "Agreement")"Agreement") withwith FoxFox NewsNews thatthat containedcontained anan arbitrationarbitration provision.provision. InIn pertinentpart,pertinent part, thethe arbitrationarbitration provisionprovision provides:provides:

AnyAny controversy,controversy, claimclaim oror disputedispute arisingarising outout ofof oror relatingrelating toto thisthis AgreementAgreement oror Performer's [Ms. Carlson's] employment shall bebe broughtbrought beforebefore a mutually selected three-member arbitration panel and held inin NewNew York CityCity inin accordance with thethe rulesrules of thethe American Arbitration Association ["AAA"] thenthen in effect.effect.... ,.. Such arbitration, all filings, evidence and testimonytestimony connected with the arbitration, and all relevant allegations and events leading up to thethe arbitration, shall be held in strict confidence.

(See Exhibit A, page 12, attachedattachedto to the accompanying Petition).

Ignoring the Agreement's binding arbitration provision, Ms. Carlson last week filed a

Complaint in New Jersey.Iersey Superior Court, Bergen County, asserting claims arising out of and relating to her employment at Fox News. The Complaint alleges that during her employment, Petitioner

Roger Ailes, Fox News' Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, sexually harassed her, discriminated against her, and retaliated against her by not renewing her Agreement, purportedly because she had rebuffedrebuffed his allegedalleged advancesadvances andand complained.complained. TheThe ComplaintComplaint pleads onlyonly anan allegedalleged violation ofof thethe NewNew YorkYork CityCity HumanHuman RightsRights Law,Law, N.Y.C.N.Y.C. Adm.Adm. CodeCode §$ 8-1078-107 (not(not NewNew JerseyJersey law).law). (The(The

ComplaintComplaint isis attachedattached asas ExhibitExhibit BB toto thethe Petition).Petition)'r I

Ms.Ms. CarlsonCarlson notnot onlyonly improperlyimproperly filedfiled herher publicpublic ComplaintComplaint inin thethe NewNew JerseyJersey SuperiorSuperior

Court,Court, asas opposedopposed toto filingfiling itit withwith thethe AAA,AAA, sheshe hashas repeatedlyrepeatedly violatedviolated herher confidentialitycontidentiality obligationobligation soso thatthat she,she, herher counsel,counsel, andand theirtheir publicpublic relationsrelations firmfirm (aptly-named(aptly-named RippRipp Media)Media) couldcould vilifyvilify Mr.Mr. AilesAiles publicly,publicly, trytry thisthis casecase inin thethe newspapers,newspapers, on-lineon-line andand onon television,television, andand coercecoerce himhim

I 1 TheThe ComplaintCornplaint waswas removedremoved fromfrom NewNew JerseyJersey SuperiorSuperior CourtCourt toto thethe DistrictDistrict CourtCourt forfor thethe DistrictDistrict ofof NewNew JerseyJersey basedbased onon diversitydiversity ofof citizenship.citizenship. (See(See PetitionPetition ~lf 12)12)

1 FIRM:3FIRM:37652788v1 7652788v I Case 1:16-cv-05671 Document 3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 5 of 9

toto settle.settle. Ms.Ms. Carlson'sCarlson's counselcounsel hashas beenbeen onon aa non-stopnon-stop tourtour ofof majormajor mediamedia outletsoutlets everever since,since, makingmaking oneone non-privilegednon-privileged statementstatement afterafter another:another: articlesarticles quotingquoting thethe ComplaintComplaint and/orand/or Ms'Ms.

CarlsonCarlson oror herher counsel'scounsel's outrageousoutrageous commentscomments havehave appearedappeared inin TheThe NewNew YorkYork Times,Times, TheThe WallWall

StreetStreet Journal,Journal, TheThe WashingtonWashington Post,Post, TheThe NewNew YorkYork DailyDaily News,News, PeoplePeople Magazine,Magazine, Politico,Politico, DailyDaily

Beast,Beast, TheThe HoltywoodHollywood Reporter,Reporter, NewNew YorkYork Magazine,Magazine, among others.others. Moreover,Moreover, asas furtherfurther evidenceevidence

ofof Ms.Ms. Carlson'sCarlson's andand herher counsel'scounsel's intentionalintentional violationviolation ofof thethe Agreement'sAgreement's conf,tdentialityconfidentiality provision, they did not reachreach out toto Mr. Ailes before filingfiling thethe Complaint inin thethe Superior Courl.Court.

Instead, theythey struck without warning and blasted theirtheir salacious allegations toto thethe media immediately

upon hling.filing.

In a transparent attempt to evade the Agreement and her contractual commitment to arbitrate,

Ms. Carlson named only Mr. Ailes as a defendant in her Superior Court action, rather than naming

Fox News as wel1.well. At thethe. same timetime,, however, she could not avoid identifying Mr. Ailes in her

Complaint by his corporate title, "'othethe Chairman and CEO of Fox News." (See Petition Ex. B at ~fl 3).

Such gamesmanship did not permit Ms. Carlson to ignore her contractual obligationsobligations,, file in

SuperiorSuperior Court, andand publicly engage inin a smearsmear campaign against Mr. Ailes. Her leadlead counsel, an

experiencedexperienced New JerseyJersey plaintiff-sideplaintiff-side employmentemployment lawyer,lawyer, knows better. As addressedaddressecl below, both

SecondSecond CircuitCircuit andand ThirdThird CircuitCircuit lawlaw squarelysquarely hold thatthat anan employeeemployee cannotcannot avoidavoid aa bindingbinding

arbitrationarbitration agreementagreement withwith herher employeremployer byby merelymerely namingnaming herher employer'semployer's corporatecotporate officerofficer (such(such asas

ChairmanChairman andand CEOCEO Ailes)Ailes) asas thethe defendant.defendant.

ForFor thesethese reasonsreasons and and thosethose thatthat follow,follow, PetitionerPetitioner AilesAiles respectfullyrespectfully requestsrequests thatthat thisthis CourtCourt

compelcompel thethe arbitrationarbitration ofof Ms.Ms. Carlson'sCarlson's claimsclaims atat thethe AAAAAA inin ManhattanManhattan pursuantpursuant toto thethe explicitexplicit

2 termsterms ofof thethe AgreementAgreement andand staystay allall furtherfurther proceedingsproceedings inin thisthis Court.Court.2

2 2 Mr.Mr. Ailes'sAiles's motionmotion toto compelcompel arbitrationarbitration filedfiled inin thethe U.S.U.S. DistrictDistrict CourtCourl forfor thetlie DistrictDistrict ofof NewNew JerseyJersey hashas beenbee¡ withdrawn.withdrawn. Ms.Ms. CarlsonCarlson hadhad notnot respondedresponded toto thethe motionmotion atat thethe timetirne thatthat itit waswas withdrawn.withdrawn.

22 FIRM:37652788vlFIRM:37652788v I Case 1:16-cv-05671 Document 3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 6 of 9

ARGUMENTARGUMENT

THISTHIS COURTCOURT SHOULDSHOULD COMPELCOMPEL ARBITRATIONARBITRATION ININ ACCORDANCEACCORDANCE WITHWITH MS.MS. CARLSON'SCARLSON'S EMPLOYMENTEMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTAGREEMENT ANDAND SHOULDSHOULD STAYST A Y ALLALL FURTHERFURTHER .IUDICIALJUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.PROCEEDINGS.

A.A. Federal Law RequiresRequires ThatThat ArbitrationArbitration ProvisionsProvisions BeBe Enforced.Enforced.

Section 2 ofof the Federal Arbitration Act,Act, 99 U.S.C. $§ 2 (the(the "FAA"), states lhatthat a contract provision "evidencing a transactiontransaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafterthereafter arising out of such contract or transactiontransaction ... shall be valid, irrevocable and enforceableenforc~able

save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for thethe revocation of any contract." Gilmer v.

Interstate/Johnsoninterstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 24-25 (1991); see Circuit City Stores, Inc.inc. v,v. Adams,

532s32 U.S.U.S. 105,109105, 109 (2001).(2001).

The FAA, §$ 4, provides that a "party aggrieved by the alleged failure, neglect or refusal of

another to arbitrate under a written agreement for arbitration may petition any United States district

court, which save for such agreement, would have jurisdiction ...... for an order directing that such

arbitration proceed in the manner provided for in such agreement." (emphasis added) See

Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, inclnc.,473., 473 U.S. 614,619614, 619 n.3n'3 (1985).(1985)'

The FFAA AA f~rtherfurther provides thatthat when a party filesfiles aa judicialjudicial complaint in violation of an

agreementagreement toto arbitrate,arbitrate, aa federalfederal districtdistrict courtcourt shallshall staystay allall judicialjudicial proceedings and directdirect thethe parties toto proceedproceedto to arbitration.arbitration. Gilmer,Gilmer,500 500 U.S.U.S. atat25, 25, citingciting 99 U.S.C.U.S.C. §§$$ 33 andand 4;4; seesee alsoalso DeanDeanl4/itter Witter

ReynoldsReynolds,, Inc.Inc. v.v. Byrd,Byrd,470 470 U.S.U.S. 213,219213,219 (1985).(1985).

TheTlre SupremeSupreme CourtCourt hashas longlong instructedinstructed thatthaÍ" arbitrationarbitration isis stronglystrongly favoredfavored asas aa mattermatter ofof policypolicy andand thatthat anyany ambiguitiesambiguities inin thethe scopescope ofof anan arbitrationarbitration clauseclause shouldshould be be resolvedresolved inin favorfavor ofof arbitration.arbitration. MosesMoses HH. ConeCone MemorialMemorial Hasp.Hosp. v.v. MercuryMercury ConstrConstr.. Corp.,Corp.,460 460 U.S.U.S. 1,1,24-25 24-25 (1983)(1983)'.

Thus,Thus, aa courtcourt mustmust compelcompel arbitrationarbitration "unlesso'unless itit maymay bebe saidsaid withwith positivepositive assuranceassurance thatthat thethe

3J FIRMFIRM:37652788v:37652788v II Case 1:16-cv-05671 Document 3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 7 of 9

arbitrationarbitration clauseclause isis notnot susceptiblesusceptible ofof anan interpretationinterpretation thatthat coverscovers thethe assertedasserted dispute."dispute." AT&TAT&T

Techs.,Techs., Inc.Inc. v.v. Commc'nsCommc 'ns LkorkersWorkers ofof Amer,,Amer., 475475 U'S'U.S. 643,643,650(1986). 650 (1986).

B.B. Ms.Ms. Carlson'sCarlson's ArbitrationArbitration AgreementAgreement IsIs BothBoth ApplicableApplicable andand Enforceable.Enforceable.

TheThe arbitrationarbitration provisionprovision inin thethe AgreementAgreement herehere expresslyexpressly providesprovides thatthat "la]ny"[a]ny controversy,controversy, claimclaim oror disp¡tedispute arisingarising outout ofof oror relatingrelating toto thisthis AgreementAgreement oror Performer'sPerformer's [Ms.[Ms. Carlson's]Carlson's] employmentemployment shallshall bebe broughtbrought beforebefore aa mutuallymutually selectedselected three-memberthree-member arbitrationarbitration panelpanel andand heldheld inin

NewNew York City in accordance with thethe American Arbitration Association thenthen inin effect." The language of thethe Agreement could not be clearer: thethe Complaint, which on its face involves claims arising out of and relating to Ms. Carlson's employment at Fox News, belongs at the AAA.

Courts uniformly reject Ms,Ms. Carlson's transparent tactical strategy of attempting to evade her arbitration agreement by arguing that only the employer, and not the employer's executive, signed the Agreement, and therefore the provision purported does not apply. For example, in Roby v. Corp. of Lloyd's, where the plaintiffs argued that the arbitration agreement was not enforceable because defendants' chairpersons were not parties to it, the Second Circuit rejrejected ected the argument and instructed:instructed:

CourtsCourls inin thisthis andand otherother circuitscircuits consistentlyconsistently have held that employeesemployees oror discloseddisclosed agentsagents ofof anan entityentity thatthat isis aa partyparty toto anan arbitrationarbitration agreementagreement areare protectedprotected byby thatthat agreement.agreement. ... WeWe believe thatthat thisthis [naming[naming ofof thethe Chairs]Chairsl isis aa distinctiondistinction withoutwithout aa legaltegal difference.difference. IfIf itit werewere otherwise,otherwise, itit wouldwould bebe tootoo easyeasy toto circumventcircumvent thethe agreementsagreements byby namingnaming individualsindividuals asas defendantsdefendants insteadinstead ofof thethe entityentity AgentsAgents themselves.themselves.

Roby,Roby,996F.2d 996 F.2d 1353,1353, 13601360 (2d(2d Cir.Cir. 1993)1993) (emphasis(emphasis added);added); seesee alsoalso CampanielloCampaniello ImportsImports Ltd.Ltd' v.v.

Saporitisaporiti Italialtalia S.p.A.,s.p.A.,l 117 17 F.F. 3d3d 655,655, 668-69 668-69 (2d(2d Cir.Cir. 1997); 1997); MarcusMarcus v.v. Frome,Frome,275 275 F.F. Supp.Supp. 2d2d 496, 496,

44 FIRM:37652788vFIRM:37652788v I I Case 1:16-cv-05671 Document 3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 8 of 9

504-05504-05 (S.D.N.Y.(S.D.N.Y. 2003).32003).3 NamingNaming ChairmanChairman andand CEOCEO AilesAiles asas aa defendant,defendant, andand notnot FoxFox News,News, isis

preciselyprecisely suchsuch aa "distinction"distinction withoutwithout aa difference."difference."

TheThe ThirdThird CircuitCircuit sharesshares thethe Second Circuit'sCircuit's view.VIew. It hashas directeddirected thatthat "[b]ecause"[b]ecause aa

principalprincipal isis boundbound underunder thethe termsterms ofof aa validvalid arbitrationarbitration clause,clause, itsits agents,agents, employees,employees, andand

representativesrepresentatives are alsoalso covered under thethe termsterms of such agteements."agreements." PritzkerPritzker v. MeruillMerrill Lynch,Lynch,

Pierce Fenner Fenner & Smith, Inc.,7Inc. , 7 F.3d 1110, 1121-22 (3d(3d Cir. 1993) (affirming thethe District Courl'sCourt's

decision toto compel arbitration). More recently, thethe Third Circuit reaffirmed its holding inin Pritzker,

stating: "The Pritzker rule - thatthat nonsignatory agents may invoke a valid arbitration agreement entered into by their principal - is well-settled and supported by other decisions of this Court."

Tracinda Corp. v. DailmerChrysler AG, 502502F,3d212,224 FJd 212, 224 (3d Cfu.Cir. 2007).2007)'

Likewise, the New York and New Jersey state courts rejreject ect the tactic of attempting to avoid

arbitration by suing a corporate officer, instead of the corporation itself. In New York, as the

Appellate Division, First Department explained and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed, the

"attempt to distinguish officer and directors from the corporation they represent for the purposes of

evading an arbitration provision is contrary to the established policy of this State." Hirschfield

Productions, Inc. v. Mirvish,Mirvish,218 218 A.D.2d 567,568 (1st(1st Dep't 1995),1995), ajJ'd,aff'd,88 88 N.Y.2d 1054,1054, 10561056

(1996).(1996). And inin Bleumer v.v. Parkway Ins.Ins. Co.,Co,277 277 N.J.NJ. Super.Super. 378,408-13378,408-13 (Law(Law Div.Div. 1994),1994),the the

plaintiffplaintiff arguedargued thatthat he shouldshould be permittedpermitted toto suesue his employer'semployer's chiefchief financialfinanoial officerofficer inin courtcourt

becausebecause thethe chiefchief financialfinancial officerofficer waswas notnot aa signatorysignatory toto hishis arbitrationarbitration agreementagreement withwith hishis

employer.employer. RelyingRelying onon PritzkerPritzker andand Roby,Roby, thethe NewNew JerseyJersey courtcourt grantedgranted thethe defendants'defendants'motion motion toto

compelcompel arbitrationarbitration andand stayedstayed anyany furtherfurther proceedingsproceedings inin court.court. Id.Id. atat 413.4I3.

3 3 ComplaintsComplaints asseliingassefting violationsviolations ofof thethe NewNew YorkYork CityCity HumanHuman RightsRights Law,Law, whichwhich areare subjectsubject toto arbitrationarbitration . agreements,agreernents, butbut areare filedfiled inin couli,couft, areare uniformlyuniformly compelledcompellecl toto arbitration.arbitration. See,See, e.g.,e.g., ThomasThomas vv.. PublicPublic Storage,Storage, Inc.,lnc.,957 957 F.F. Supp.Supp. 2d2d 496,496,497 497 (S.D.N.Y.(S.D.N,Y. 2013).2013),

55 FIRMFIRM:37652788v1:37652788v J Case 1:16-cv-05671 Document 3 Filed 07/15/16 Page 9 of 9

InIn sum,sum, Ms.Ms. Carlson'sCarlson's ployploy ofof filingfiling againstagainst Mr.Mr. AilesAiles alonealone inin thethe SuperiorSuperior CourtCourt ofof New New

JerseyJersey toto justifyjustify herher shamelessshameless publicitypublicity campaigncampaign shouldshould notnot bebe countenanced,countenanced. AllAll applicableapplicable lawlaw requiresrequires thatthat thethe ComplaintComplaint bebe compelledcompelled toto arbitration'arbitration.

CONCLUSIONCONCLUSION

Ms.Ms. Carlson'sCarlson's attemptattempt toto gamegame thethe systemsystem soso asas toto avoidavoid thethe arbitrationarbitration provisionprovision forfor herher completelycompletely baselessbaseless allegationsallegations isis contrarycontrary toto lawlaw andand unsupportedunsupported byby thethe facts.facts. TheThe arbitrationarbitration provision inin thethe Agreement requiredrequired Ms. Carlson toto filefile her Complaint, which squarelysquarely relatesrelates toto her employment at Fox News, with thethe AAA in New York City. There isis no legal basis upon which she can rightfully assert thatthat she was entitled to sue Petitioner Ailes in court and sully his reputation in public.pUblic. Mr. Ailes's Petition to compel arbitration and stay all judicial proceedings should be granted in all respects.

Dated: July 15,2016

Respectfully submitted,

EPSTEINEPSTEiN BECKER & GREEN, P.C. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART && SULLIVAN, LLP

/s//s/ Davidl)avid W. GarlandGarland JohnJohn B.B. QuinnQuinn (proQtro hac vicevice motionmolion forthcoming)forthcoming) RonaldRonald M.M. GreenGreen SusanSusan R.R. EstrichEstrich (proQtro hachac vicevice motionmotion forthcoming)forthcoming) DavidDavid W.V/. GarlandGarland JamesJames R.R. AspergerAsperger th BarryBarry AsenAsen 865865 S.S. Figueroanigueìoa St.,St., 101Oth FloorFloor 250250 ParkPark AvenueAvenue LosLos Angeles,Angeles, CaliforniaCalifornia 9001790017 NewNew York,York, NewNew YorkYork 1017710177 Telephone:Telephone: (213)(213) 443-3000443-3000 Telephone:Telephone: (212)(212) 351-4500351 -4500

AttorneysforAttorneys for PetitionerPetitioner RogerRoger AilesAiles

66 FIRM:37652788vlFIRM:37652788v I