Epstein Secrets

1) 11 Night Hawk Ltd. v. Briarpatch Ltd.. L.P., No. 03 Civ. 1382 RWS, 2003 WL 23018833 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003) 10, 11 Oppenheimer Fund. Inc. v. Sanders 437 U.S. 340 (1978) 10 Patterson v. Burge. No. 03 C 4433, 2005 WL 43240 (N.D. III. Jan 6, 2005) 4.5 Persky v. Yeshiva Univ. No. 01 Civ. 4278 (

7 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 28, 1996) 18 Bruno v. Stillman. Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co. 633 F.2d 583 (1st Cir. 1980) 4, 5 Cablevision Systems Corp. v. DePalma, No. CV-87-3528 (JLC), 1989 WL 8165 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 17. 1989) 7 Chick-Fil-A. Inc. v. CFT Dev.. LLC 652 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (M.D. Fla. 2009) 12 Coop

la. 1966). It is not enough for the opposing party merely to assert that an issue of fact does exist. Fisel v. Wynns, 667 So.2d 761, 764 (Fla.1996); Landers v. Milton, 370 So.2d 368, 370 (F1a.1979) (same). Moreover, it is well-recognized that the non-moving party faced with a summary judgment motion su

e relief in a civil action and then invoke the fifth amendment to avoid giving discovery, using the fifth amendment as both a `sword and a shield.' DePalma v. DePalma, 538 So.2d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1989) (quoting DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance Co., 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 19

1) 11 Night Hawk Ltd. v. Briarpatch Ltd.. L.P., No. 03 Civ. 1382 RWS, 2003 WL 23018833 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2003) 10, 11 Oppenheimer Fund. Inc. v. Sanders 437 U.S. 340 (1978) 10 Patterson v. Burge. No. 03 C 4433, 2005 WL 43240 (N.D. III. Jan 6, 2005) 4.5 Persky v. Yeshiva Univ. No. 01 Civ. 4278 (

7 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 28, 1996) 18 Bruno v. Stillman. Inc. v. Globe Newspaper Co. 633 F.2d 583 (1st Cir. 1980) 4, 5 Cablevision Systems Corp. v. DePalma, No. CV-87-3528 (JLC), 1989 WL 8165 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 17. 1989) 7 Chick-Fil-A. Inc. v. CFT Dev.. LLC 652 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (M.D. Fla. 2009) 12 Coop