Epstein Secrets

iewed as a form of injunctive relief, is more precisely viewed as a pre- judgment seizure of property. In any event, the name is not important. See Rosen v. Cascade Intern., Inc., 21 F.3d 1520, 1530 (11th Cir. 1994) (“federal courts look past the terminology to the actual nature of the relief request

dant’s] seemingly blanket invocation of the privilege against self-incrimination.” Custer Battles, 41 F.Supp.2d at 634-35 (emphasis added). Thus, Custer Battles cautioned against drawing inferences about other people’s state of mind via an adverse inference from defendant Morris’ invocation of his Fifth Amen

such an inference is somehow not proper under the test laid out by United States v. Custer Battles, LLC, 415 F.Supp.2d 628, 633 (E.D. Va. 2006). Custer Battles lays out a two-prong test for deciding whether a factfinder can appropriately draw an adverse inference. The first prong is whether there is “a vali

the plaintiff seeks only to recover money damages do not fall within the jurisdiction of equity and injunctive relief is therefore unavailable. See Rosen v. Cascade Int'l. Inc. 21 F.3d 1520, 1529-30 (11th Cir. 1994) (holding that the district court lacked the general equitable authority to issue an i

ly be drawn when independent evidence exists of the fact to which the party refuses to answer." Id. at 635 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). In Custer Battles. LLC unlike the instant case, the court found the record contained "ample evidence of Morris' involvement in the [fraudulent) billing ... which in

determine the availability of prejudgment remedies for the seizure of person or property to secure satisfaction of the judgment ultimately entered." Rosen v. Cascade Intern., Inc., 21 F.3d 1520, 1531 (11th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, under this Rule, this Court looks to Florida law to determine Jane Doe'

lege without placing the witness in the 'cruel trilemma' of choosing among incrimination, perjury, or contempt." United States ex rel. DRC, Inc. v. Custer Battles, LLC, 415 F.Supp.2d 628, 633 (E.D. Va. 2006). The Eleventh Circuit has not hesitated to support district courts that draw an adverse inference from