OPINION & ORDER George Galgano (“Plaintiff” or “Galgano”) brings this Action against Defendants County of Putnam (the “County”), Carmel Police Department Detective Michael T. Nagle (“Nagle”), former Putnam County District Attorney Adam Levy (“Levy”), former Putnam County Assistant District Attorney Andres Gil (“Gil”), former Putnam County Investigator Lourdes Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”), and former Putnam County Investigator Henry Lopez (“Lopez” and with Levy, Gil, and Gonzalez, the “Individual County Defendants” or “ICDs”; collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff raises claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 and state law. (See Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”) (Dkt. No. 318).) Before the Court are the Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s claims. (ICDs’ Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 713); County’s Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 729); Nagle’s Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 731).) Also pending is Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on his unlawful search and replevin claims and his Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant Levy’s Counterclaims. (Pl’s Not. of Mot. (Dkt. No. 711).) For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ Motions are granted. I. Background A. Factual Background 1. Materials Considered The following facts are taken from the Parties’ statements pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1, specifically: Defendants’ 56.1 Statement, (Defs’ Rule 56.1 Statement (“Defs’ 56.1″) (Dkt. No. 715)); Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ 56.1 Statement, (Pl’s Resp. to Def’s Rule 56.1 Statement (“Pl’s Resp. 56.1″) (Dkt. No. 717)); Plaintiff’s 56.1 Statement (Pl’s Rule 56.1 Statement (“Pl’s 56.1″) (Dkt. No. 712)); Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s 56.1 Statement (Def’s Resp. Rule 56.1 Statement (“Defs’ Resp. 56.1″) (Dkt. No. 724)); Defendant Levy’s Counter-Statement to Plaintiff’s 56.1 Statement (Levy’s Rule 56.1 Counter-Statement (“Levy’s 56.1″) (Dkt. No. 726)); Plaintiff’s Response to Levy’s 56.1 Statement (Pl’s Resp. to Levy’s Rule 56.1 Statement (“Pl’s Levy Resp. 56.1″) (Dkt. No. 736)).1 Additionally, where necessary, the Court cites directly to the admissible evidence submitted by the Parties.2 The facts as described below are in dispute to the extent indicated.3 2. Parties and Other Relevant Actors Plaintiff is a criminal defense attorney who practices in state and federal courts. (Pl’s 56.1 1; Defs’ Resp. 56.1 1.) At all times relevant to this Action, Plaintiff’s office was located at 399 Knollwood Road in White Plains, New York. (Defs’ 56.1 337; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 337.) At all times relevant to this Action, Andrew Kuchta (“Kuchta”), who is not a Party to this Action, operated a private investigation firm and worked with Plaintiff. (Defs’ 56.1 70; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 70.) Laini Zaimi (“Zaimi”), who is not a Party to this Action, was a restauranteur in Putnam County at all relevant times. (Pl’s 56.1 14; Defs’ Resp. 56.1 14.) Zaimi owned two restaurants that operated under the name Ariano’s and was commonly called “Ariano.” (Defs’ 56.1 262; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 262.) M.A., who is not a Party to this Action, worked as a waitress for Zaimi. (Defs’ 56.1 78; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 78; see also Pl’s 56.1 19; Defs’ Resp. 56.1 19.)4 On July 31, 2013, M.A. informed her mother that she had been sexually assaulted by Zaimi. (Defs’ 56.1 78; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 78.) She later went to the Carmel Police Department (“CPD”) and pressed charges against Zaimi. (Defs’ 56.1 80; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 80.) K.L., who is not a Party to this Action, worked as a waitress for Zaimi. (Pl’s 56.1 35; Defs’ Resp. 56.1 35.) On January 29, 2014, K.L. reported to the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office (“PCSO”) that Zaimi had inappropriately touched her. (Defs’ 56.1 154; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 154.) Lia LoRusso (“Lia”), who is not a Party to this Action, is K.L.’s sister. (Defs’ 56.1 75; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 75.) Donna Cianflone (“Donna” or “Cianflone”), who is not a Party to this Action, is K.L. and Lia’s mother. (Defs’ 56.1 76; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 76.) Quincy McQuaid (“McQuaid”), who is not a Party to this Action, is Lia’s boyfriend. (Defs’ 56.1 77; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 77.) Danielle Pascale (“Pascale”), who is not a Party to this Action, was an Assistant District Attorney (“ADA”) at the Putnam County District Attorney’s Office (“PCDAO”) from 2012 to 2016 and specialized in the prosecution of sex crimes. (Aff. of Danielle Pascale, Esq. 3 (Dkt. No. 714-1).) Pascale prosecuted Zaimi for the sexual assault of M.A. (Defs’ 56.1 87; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 87.) Pascale also prosecuted Zaimi for the forcible touching of K.L. (Defs’ 56.1 159; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 159.) Gil worked as an ADA in the PCDAO from February 18, 2014 through December 31, 2015. (Pl’s 56.1 3; Defs’ Resp. 56.1 3.) Gonzalez worked as an investigator for the PCDAO from February 18, 2014 through December 31, 2015. (Defs’ 56.1 19; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 19.) Lopez worked as an investigator for the PCDAO from 2008 through 2015. (Defs’ 56.1 32; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 32.) Chana Krauss (“Krauss”), who is not a Party in this Action, was hired by the PCDAO as an ADA in 2008. (Defs’ 56.1 33; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 33.) From 2013 through 2015, Krauss served as the Chief ADA. (Defs’ 56.1 34; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 34.) Krauss was one of Gil’s supervisors. (Defs’ 56.1 40; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 40.)5 Lisa Ortolano (“Ortolano”), who is not a Party in this Action, worked for the PCDAO from March 2009 until May 2015. (Defs’ 56.1 35; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 35.) In 2014, Ortolano was promoted to First ADA when Krauss was promoted to Chief ADA. (Defs’ 56.1 38; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 38.) Ortolano was one of Gil’s supervisors. (Defs’ 56.1 40; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 40.)6 Levy was the Putnam County District Attorney (“Putnam County DA”) from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2015. (Pl’s 56.1 2; Defs’ Resp. 56.1 2.)7 Nagle is a Detective Sergeant employed by the Town of Carmel, New York. (Defs’ 56.1 41; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 41.) At the time of the events at issue, Nagle was the Detective Division Commander of the CPD. (Pl’s 56.1 158; Defs’ Resp. 56.1 158.) As relevant here, he supervised several detectives who worked on the M.A. and K.L. prosecutions. (Pl’s 56.1 159; Defs’ Resp. 56.1 159.) 3. Plaintiff’s Investigation of M.A. a. Zaimi’s Assault of M.A. Shortly before 3:30 AM on July 31, 2013, M.A. arrived at Putnam Hospital Center in Carmel, New York. (JEX 43 (“M.A. Hospital Records”) at 2 (Dkt. No. 757-2).)8 Around twenty minutes later, M.A. reported to hospital staff that “unwanted sexual contact [had] occurred between [her] and a person known to her.” (Id.) A few hours later, M.A. provided a fuller account to hospital staff, which a staff member memorialized as follows: 18 y/o female presents stating that at work closing the restaurant for the night, her boss had her drink wine, then pulled down her pants, pulled down his own pants, and had unprotected sexual intercourse despite [her] saying no. [Patient] ran home afterward, spoke with her mother & sister, coming to the ED for eval. (Id. 4-5.) A rape kit was collected, and a “sl[ight] bruise post[erior] vagina” was noted during M.A.’s physical examination. (Id. at 3-4, 6.) At around 7:30 AM, CPD officers arrived and took a report from M.A. (Id. at 3.) M.A. was released at around 8 AM. (Id. at 6.) Later that day, a police report was completed based on what M.A. had told the officers at the hospital. (See JEX 364 at 2 (Dkt. No. 747-16).) The report included the following statement: [M.A.] states that she works at Ar[]iano’s Restaurant in Carmel…. Last night at approx. 2300 hours[,] she was alone in the restaurant with the suspect-[Zaimi]…. Zaimi asked [M.A.] to have a drink with him at the bar, [M.A.] felt compelled to do it so she…shared a beer with him. After the beer[,] [M.A.] had a glass of wine…. [Zaimi] was acting inappropriately by touching her and saying things that were making her uncomfortable. [Zaimi] asked [M.A.] if she would take a ride with him to [another] restaurant. [M.A.] couldn’t drive because she had been drinking[,] and she felt compelled to go with him because he is her boss so she went. Upon arriving at the [other restaurant,]…[Zaimi] took her purse off her shoulder and threw it to the floor. [Zaimi]…began kissing [M.A.]. [M.A.] pulled away and told [Zaimi] that she didn’t want to do that and stated that he was married…. Zaimi then walked over to [M.A.] and pulled her shirt up and her pants down,…[M.A.] pulled her shirt down and her pants up and again said something about [Zaimi] being married and having kids. [Zaimi] at that time pulled [M.A.'s] pants own and turned her around. [Zaimi] penetrated [M.A.] and had vaginal intercourse with her. [M.A.] states that it was only for approx. 2 min. but that [Zaimi] ejaculated in her. (Id. at 2-3.) On August 1, 2013, M.A. went to the CPD to press charges against Zaimi. (Defs’ 56.1 81; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 81; see JEX 44 (“M.A. Interview Video”) (Dkt. No. 757-4).) M.A. participated in an interview with Nagle and a CPD lieutenant. (Defs’ 56.1 81; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 81.) During the interview, M.A. reported that Zaimi had given her beer and wine, even though she was underage. (Defs’ 56.1 81; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 81.) M.A. told the officers that as she was drinking with Zaimi, he pressured her to drink, saying “Drink…. Don’t be a pussy. Drink.” (M.A. Interview Video 12:32:27-29.)9 Zaimi then drove M.A. to another restaurant he owned after she told him she was too intoxicated to drive home. (Defs’ 56.1 83; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 83.) Zaimi and M.A. walked into the restaurant, and Zaimi then began kissing and holding M.A.; M.A. stopped him and then the two separated. (M.A. Interview Video 12:39:16-25.) A few minutes later, Zaimi again began kissing M.A., pressed her up against a sink, and began pulling her shirt up and her pants down. (Id. at 12:39:46-56.) M.A. briefly kissed Zaimi back and then pulled up her pants and told Zaimi “you have a wife and you’re my boss” before walking away from him. (Id. at 12:20:21-25, 12:21:29-31, 12:39:52-12:40:09.) Zaimi’s pants were partly down, and he was touching his penis. (Id. at 12:40:11-14.) Zaimi told M.A. that she would have a job no matter what happened. (Id. at 12:20:27-33, 12:21:33-36.) Zaimi pulled M.A. back to the sink, turned her so she was facing the sink, and pulled down her pants again. (Id. at 12:40:16-33.) Zaimi then sexually assaulted M.A. and ejaculated in her anus. (Id. at 12:22:13-44, 13:17:35-13:18:57.) M.A. stated that during the assault she was “whimpering a little bit, [and] closing [her] eyes” and “the whole time [she]…just…wanted to cry.” (Id. at 13:18:39-42, 12:22:34-43.) After the interview had concluded, CPD called Pascale and informed her about M.A.’s statement. (JEX 187 (Dkt. No. 760-7).)10 b. Plaintiff’s Investigation of M.A. and the Prosecution On August 9, 2013, Zaimi was indicted and arrested for Rape in the Third Degree, Criminal Sexual Act in the Third Degree, and Unlawfully Dealing with a Child in the First Degree. (JEX 448 (Dkt. No. 751-11); Pl’s 56.1 20; Defs’ Resp. 56.1 20.) Zaimi hired Plaintiff to represent him on or around August 14, 2013. (JEX 158 (“Galgano-Kuchta Text Msgs”) at 118984, 119098 (Dkt. No. 767-8-9)); see also Defs’ 56.1 90; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 90.)11 Following his retention, Plaintiff began investigating M.A. (Pl’s 56.1 22; Defs’ Resp. 56.1 22.)12 In late August, Plaintiff reached out to Charles J. Gainey (“Gainey”), M.A.’s exboyfriend, via email. (See JEX 39 (“Gainey Complaint”) at 2-3 (Dkt. No. 742-24).) Gainey called Plaintiff on August 30, 2013 and spoke to him about his contact with M.A. after Zaimi’s assault. (Id. at 3.) Based on that conversation, Plaintiff drafted an affidavit for Gainey to sign. (Galgano-Kuchta Text Msgs at 120898.) The affidavit included the following statements: I believe that I was the first person [M.A.] called after the sexual encounter she described to me as a rape…. Based on my prior dealings with [M.A.], her tone and demeanor during the phone call and her reluctance to call the police and report the incident, I did not believe she was actually raped by anyone…. It seemed that she was using the “rape” to make me feel sorry for her in an effort to reconnect…. During the [time] I dated [M.A.], I had occasion to observe her in possession of a prescription pill bottle. She told me that she was prescribed anxiety medication. I broke up with [M.A.], in part because it was difficult to deal with her violent mood swings. (Id. at 2-3.) On September 5, 2013, Holly Finley (“Finley”), a private investigator who worked with Plaintiff, approached Gainey at his place of employment, and Gainey signed the affidavit after making handwritten alterations. (Gainey Complaint at 2-4; JEX 463 (Dkt. No. 753-9); JEX 160 (“Galgano-Finley Text Msgs”) at 120598, 120619 (Dkt. No. 759-10).)13 On September 21, 2013, Gainey filed a voluntary statement with the CPD, stating the following: I am [M.A.'s] ex-boyfriend…. I was harassed by a private investigator [to sign the affidavit]…. She would wait outside my house for over an hour on multiple days[.] She would call me many times throughout the day[.] She sent me numerous texts[.] I don’t know what happened that night, also [M.A.] is not a liar…. I don’t know if [M.A.] did get raped but she wouldn’t lie about this to me[.] [T]he phone conversation that [Plaintiff and I] had was turned into a statement that I was unaware of[.] [Finley]…told me at my [j]ob “I have no choice” [but] to give my statement. When I looked at the statement it was amplified to the next level trying to get me to say [M.A.] was “abusive” which I never said. I was tricked by [Finley] into giving my statement. These investigators are twisting my words. The [s]tatement that they had me sign was originally filled with lies and twisted my words to make them prove [their] case. I never said those things. I scratched out a lot of the stat[e]ments that [were] really bad. (Gainey Complaint 5-6.) Gainey’s statement complaining about Plaintiff and Finley’s conduct was shared with the PCDAO, including Krauss and Pascale. (See JEX 48 (Dkt. No. 757-8); JEX 192 (Dkt. No. 760-12).) On September 16, 2013, Plaintiff directed Finley to stake out M.A.’s home and attempt to contact her to ask her a number of questions concerning Zaimi’s assault. (Galgano-Kuchta Text Msgs at 122436; Galgano-Finley Text Msgs at 122429-30.)14 The next day, Finley approached M.A. as she was leaving a tanning salon, but M.A. refused to speak with her. (Galgano-Kuchta Text Msgs at 122500, 122567.) That evening, Kuchta was surveilling M.A.’s home and reported to Plaintiff that a person he believed to be M.A. had noticed his presence and then refused to answer when he knocked on the door of M.A.’s house. (Id. at 122555.) Also on September 17, 2013, Plaintiff told Kuchta, “I think we should just start digging…. Contact people [and] [t]ell them we are involved in a criminal investigation. What can you tell me about [M.A.][?] If nothing else it will give her anxiety.” (Id. at 122586-87.) On September 19, 2019, Plaintiff used Kuchta’s Facebook account to send a message to individuals who were “connected to [M.A.] or to her family members” that informed recipients that Kuchta was “conducting an investigation involving [M.A.]” and that it was “ important that [he] speak to friends, family and individuals who are familiar with and know [M.A.] on a person[al] basis.” (JEX 41 at 2 (Dkt. No. 757-1).)15 On September 19, 2013, Plaintiff directed Kuchta to “[g]o to neighbor[']s houses…talk about rape, dig and ask about [M.A.'s mother] and her daughters” and to also “[s]tand outside [M.A.'s house]. Take pictures of [the] house, cars, [and] people coming in and out.” (Galgano-Kuchta Text Msgs at 122884, 122885.) The next day, Kuchta did as Plaintiff directed and reported back that “[i]f anything we made this entire block aware of the investigation…I hit every house[.]…I [also] walked up to [M.A.'s] house earlier…I got to the door and heard from inside, there is no one home and to please go away.” (Id. at 123079.)16 Kuchta added that “I am sure some o[f] the neighbors will contact [M.A.'s family] and advise that we were up there asking around[.]” (Id. at 123080.) At around the same time, M.A. notified Pascale about her encounter at the tanning salon and about Plaintiff’s Facebook message. (JEX 55 at 2 (Dkt. No. 757-15).) On the evening of September 20, 2013, Pascale sent an email to prosecutors in a number of other counties that described these efforts to reach M.A. and also explained that “the defense attorney [had] texted [M.A.] and asked to speak to her.” (Id.) Pascale commented that “[M.A.] [was] beside herself and feeling harassed” because of Plaintiff’s intrusions into her life. (Id. at 3.)17 Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in February 2014. (See JEX 490.) In support of this motion, Plaintiff emphasized what he argued were inconsistencies in M.A.’s account of the events of July 30-31, 2013, claiming that her account had changed to implicate Zaimi because of pressure from Nagle and Pascale and that the testimony Pascale elicited from her in the grand jury was perjurious. (See id. at 12-18.) On February 13, 2014, a week before Zaimi’s trial was to begin on February 20, Plaintiff emailed a complete and unredacted transcript of M.A.’s August 1, 2013 interview with the CPD to two reporters. (See JEX 53 (Dkt. No. 757-13); JEX 54 (Dkt. No. 757-14).) In one of the emails, Plaintiff stated that the “alleged victim has admitted to the [CPD] that the sex with [Zaimi] was consensual.” (JEX 54 at 2.) On February 19, 2014, Krauss described Plaintiff’s disclosure of the transcript as “a method to taint the jury pool […] [and] intimidate the victim.” (JEX 200 at 2 (Dkt. 760-20).) The next day, which was also the first day of the M.A. trial, a multi-page article was published in a local newspaper that quoted extensively from the transcript of M.A.’s interview. (See JEX 402 at 2-4 (Dkt. No. 749-1).) After reading the article, Krauss commented that “[a]lthough the [newspaper] did not print [M.A.'s] name[,] they printed any portions of her statement that made her seem less credible.” (JEX 201 at 3 (Dkt. No. 761-1).)18 At trial, M.A. took the stand as the prosecution’s first witness. (JEX 403 at 3 (Dkt. No. 749-2).) Plaintiff cross-examined M.A. at length, which at times resulted in her being visibly upset and having to leave the witness stand. (Pl’s 56.1 31; Defs’ Resp. 56.1 31.)19 A few weeks into trial, on March 6, 2014, Plaintiff filed a letter with the court requesting that Levy be required to testify so that Plaintiff could probe “the motivation of the [PCDAO] in pursuing [Zaimi's] prosecution.” (JEX 399 at 3 (Dkt. No. 748-16).)20 The trial judge denied this request the next day. (See JEX 441 (Dkt. No. 751-4).) On March 17, 2014, the trial judge declared a mistrial; on the day the mistrial was declared, the jury was reportedly deadlocked eleven to one in favor of Zaimi’s conviction on the two felony counts related to his sexual assault of M.A and had unanimously determined that Zaimi be acquitted for the misdemeanor. (JEX 403 at 2-3.) 4. K.L.’s Report and Plaintiff’s Investigation a. K.L.’s Report of Zaimi’s Forcible Touching On January 29, 2014, K.L. reported to the PCSO that Zaimi had inappropriately touched her. (Defs’ 56.1 154; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 154.) K.L. completed a written statement: [Today,] the owner of Arian[]o’s…began training me on the computer. [He] wouldn’t stand more than 6 inches away from me. After putting his hand on my back and rubbing it[,] I said stop [and] walked away. We were alone. When I came back to the register[,] he asked me [i]f I was married, I asked why [and] didn’t answer…. As he was explain[in]g or talking[,] he [r]epeatedly poked/brushed up against my breasts. I kept backing away and brought up that he knew my Aunt — he then tried to hug me [and] I didn’t let him. [A]bout 10 minutes later he grabbed me and hugged me [and] I pulled away. (JEX 59 at 7 (Dkt. No. 757-19).)21 K.L. did not press charges because she was told by the officer who took her complaint that her “complaint was not strong enough to file charges.” (Id. at 15.) On January 31, 2014, the CPD, at Pascale’s direction, reached out to the PCSO about K.L.’s complaint to confirm that Zaimi was involved, and the PCSO confirmed Zaimi’s involvement. (Id. at 2.)22 Independently, Pascale contacted K.L., who informed Pascale that she had not pressed charges because “she was unhappy with the treatment she received” from the officer who took her complaint. (Id. at 3.) Because K.L. preferred not to have the PCSO investigate further, on or around February 2, 2014, her complaint was transferred to the CPD. (Id.) On February 1, 2014, K.L. gave another statement to the CPD where she reported that Zaimi had actually harassed her twice, first in November 2012 and then on January 29, 2014. (JEX 404 at 2-6 (Dkt. No. 749-3).)23 Plaintiff became aware of K.L.’s allegations on or around February 1, 2014, when the CPD sought out Zaimi for further questioning. (JEX 206 at 2 (Dkt. No. 761-6).) On February 7, 2014, Plaintiff brought Zaimi and his wife to the CPD to voluntarily answer questions concerning K.L.’s allegations and also proffered surveillance video. (JEX 62 at 2 (Dkt. No. 757-22); JEX 405 at 3-4 (Dkt. No. 749-4); JEX 330.) The CPD arrested and charged Zaimi on February 11, 2014, before releasing him on bail. (JEX 359 at 2 (Dkt. No. 747-11); JEX 405 at 5-6.)24 Pascale prosecuted Zaimi for forcibly touching K.L., (Defs’ 56.1 159; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 159), and Plaintiff continued to serve as Zaimi’s defense attorney, (Defs’ 56.1 158; Pl’s Resp. 56.1 158). b. Plaintiff’s Investigation of K.L. After Plaintiff became aware of K.L.’s statement, he directed Kuchta to begin investigating her on February 7, 2014. (Galgano-Kuchta Text Msgs at 137612.) On February 11, 2014, Plaintiff informed Zaimi that “[w]e dug through her garbage last night and got her bank accounts.” (Galgano-Zaimi Text Msgs at 138208.) On February 11, 2014, K.L. contacted CPD and reported that “a male [had been] banging on her door for the past 10 minutes, she [was] worried and [was] not familiar with this male.” (JEX 40 at 2 (Dkt. No. 742-25).) CPD contacted K.L.’s local police department, which dispatched officers to her home. (Id.) When the officers arrived, they identified Kuchta as the man who had been banging on K.L.’s door. (Id.) 5. PCDAO’s Investigation of Plaintiff and McQuaid25 a. Plaintiff’s February and March 2014 Contact with McQuaid On February 14, 2014, Kuchta sent Plaintiff a news article about K.L.’s sister, Lia, which also discussed Lia’s boyfriend, McQuaid. (Galgano-Kuchta Text Msgs at 139202, 139204; JEX 408 at 2 (Dkt. No. 749-6).) Plaintiff told Kuchta that “McQuaid is a friend of mine” and that “[McQuaid] is the answer to all of our questions.” (Id. at 139204, 139274.) Plaintiff did not have McQuaid’s phone number but was able to procure it from an acquaintance. (JEX A at 2 (Dkt. No. 771-1).)26 Plaintiff texted McQuaid for the first time on February 24, 2014, and made a plan to meet with him the next day. (JEX 155 (“Galgano-McQuaid Text Msgs”) at 140946, 141001, 141006 (Dkt. Nos. 759-4-5).)27 McQuaid met Plaintiff at his home, and McQuaid later provided the following description of the meeting: [Plaintiff] showed me articles on the computer about [M.A. and K.L.'s accusations against Zaimi]. He asked me if I knew anything about it or heard anything. Then he asked if I could reach out to [K.L.] and find anything out about it. I said I would try. (JEX 122 at 2 (Dkt. No. 758-2).) After the meeting, Plaintiff texted McQuaid around a dozen questions about K.L. that he wanted answered. (Galgano-McQuaid Text Msgs at 3-4.) On or about February 24, 2014, Pascale instructed Gonzalez to reach out to Cianflone, K.L.’s mother; when Gonzalez contacted Cianflone, Cianflone informed Gonzalez that her daughter, Lia, had told her that Plaintiff had contacted McQuaid. (Defs’ 56.1
149, 177; Pl’s Resp. 56.1
