Epstein Secrets

tion where a litigant or witness is being asked to provide information or respond to a question that may incriminate him in a crime. See generally, DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4 th DCA 1983). The privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted during discovery when a litig

Y EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN Defendant. JANE DOE NO. 5, Plaintiff, Vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON I CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOHNSON I CASE NO.: 08-CV-80380-MARRA/JOHNSON I

ndment privilege against self-incrimination. See Delisi v. Bankers Ins. Company. 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4t

Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2009 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80

Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 24 through 28 of the Second Amended Complaint. See DeLisi Bankers Ins. Company 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 41 DCA 1983); Malloy I Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Claus

2251A, 2252, 2252A 2260, 2421, 2422 or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such minor sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee. Any minor as described in

thout knowledge and deny. 2. As to the allegations in paragraphs 2, Defendant asserts his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 1495 (1964)(the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination C

, 492 F.Supp.2d 1186, 1188 (N.D. Cal. 2007), (emphasis added). 18 U.S.C.A. §2255 "merely provides a cause of action for damages in 'any appropriate United States District Court." Id, at 1189. In Tilton v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc 554 F.3d 1371 (11th Cir. Jan. 15, 2009), the District Court granted plaintiff "the min