Epstein Secrets

ut the complained-of conduct.” Special Purpose Accounts Receivable Co-op Corp. v. Prime One Capital Co., .L.L.C, 2007 WL 4482611 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (Marra, J.). Obtaining information about the whereabouts of Epstein’s assets is particularly difficult, given his financial sophistication in structurin

solely upon a privileged refusal to admit or deny at the pleading stage.” Epstein Memo. in Opp. [DE 198 at 10] (quoting LaSalle Bank Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387, 391 (7th Cir. 1995) (emphasis added)). As just Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/23/2009 Page 15 of

2 of 24 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893-Marra/Johnson Epstein's Memorandum of Law in Oppositio

ng the relief sought by Jane Doe based solely on an adverse inference would violate Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights. See LaSalle Bank Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387, 389 (7th Cir. 1995) (noting that "the Supreme Court has prohibited practices that are coercive in that they make the exercise of the p

in Jane Doe No. 2. v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80893-Marra/Johnson on January 5, 2011. (See D.E. 226) (Ex.

n for summary judgment." Fid. Funding of Cal., Inc. v. Reinhold, 79 F. Supp. 2d 110, 116 (E.D. N.Y. 1997). As explained in LaSalle Bank Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F. 3d 387, 391 n.7 (7th Cir. 1995): Treating Segubans' silence as a separate piece of evidence supporting the Bank's motion for summary judgme

FFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. CASE NO.: 08-cv-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON CASE NO.: 08-CV-80232-MARRA/JOFINSON CA

nting the relief sought by Jane Doc based solely on an adverse inference would violate Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights. LaSalle Bank Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387, 389 (7th Cir. 1995) (noting that "the Supreme Court has prohibited practices that are coercive in that they make the exercise of the p