ounted for by factors that one might think would be much more important, including mental health, education, gender, and socioeconomic background. As DeLisi concludes, these results suggest that measures of self-control provide a reliable predictor of the likelihood of repeating a crime. They provide a

oid giving discovery, using the fifth amendment as both a ‘sword and a shield.” DePalma v. DePalma, 538 So. 2d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)(quoting DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance Co., 436 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)). Put another way, “[a] civil litigant’s fifth amendment right to avoid self-incriminat

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

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

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

18 Doe v. Epstein 08-CV80119 Page No. 10 2 See DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Company, 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th

n den; the occurrence of the assaults alleged and still maintain the safe harbor of the 5 Amendment.2 See Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17(1991). 2 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 Cl