application to pre-indictment situations, since charges had already been filed in each of these cases. See, e.g., Jn re Stewart, 552 F.3d 1285, 1289 (11th Cir. 2008). 77 Does v. United States, 817 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (S.D. Fla. 2011). % Jd. at 134]. ® Td. 80 Id. at 1342. 81 Td. Recently, the district court

or purposes of trial, which is not being sought in the present cases at this time. See Hendrix v. Raybestos – Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir. 1985). Here, the common and overlapping motion practice in these cases attests to the efficiencies to be gained by consolidating for purposes of d

proceedings.” Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985)(citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77

proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70,

zard of incrimination.” Id. A “blanket refusal” to provide testimony or information is unacceptable. See Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987). A witness bears the burden of justifying the invocation of the privilege. In re J.M.V., Inc. Epstein falls far short of the “reasonable c

80119-KAM Document 377 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2009 Page 4 of 12 5 P. 33(b)(4); Panola Land Buyers Ass’n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11th Cir. 1985); Rossbach, 128 F.Supp.2d at 1353. Thus, to even merit consideration, “an objection must show specifically how a discovery request is overly br

is raised as a bar to discovery, a blanket refusal to answer questions or to produce documents is improper. Anglada v. Sprague, 822 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir. 1987). Instead, the privilege must be asserted in response to a particular question, and in each instance the burden is on the claimant to justify i

n ]o person ... shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." (DE 242, p.5); see also Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lefkowitz v. Turley. 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973)). The privilege is accorded liberal construction in favor of the right and extends not o

ling of such briefs if they will assist in the proceedings. See In re Bayshore Ford Trucks Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 471 F.3d 1233, 1249 n.34 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Lathrop v. Unidentified, Wrecked &Abandoned Vessel, 817 F. Supp. 953, 960 n.10 (M.D. Fla. 1993); Resort Timeshare Resales, Inc. v. St

erritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1186 (11th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted)). Under the pre-July, 2

393 Audio recording of Oral Argument, Wild, No. 19-13843 (Jan. 16, 2020). 394 In re Wild, 955 F.3d 1196, 1220 (11th Cir. 2020). 246 [Page Intentionally Left Blank] 247 CHAPTER THREE PART TWO: APPLICABLE STANDARDS I. STATUTORY PROVISIONS Pertin

raise additional questions about this Court's jurisdiction under the Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See, e.g., Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (11th Cir. 2009); Powell v. Powell, 80 F.3d 464, 466-68 (11th Cir. 1996). 4 EFTA00010478 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 205-2 Entered o

Subpoena Served on Meserve, Mumper & Hughes, 62 F.3d 1222, 1226-1227 (9th Cir. 1995); In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Williams), 995 F.2d 1013, 1020 (11th Cir. 1993) (expressly criticizing the Martindell test and stating that it "is administratively unworkable," "defies construction," and "places prosecutor

ition would create the perception that either the earlier or later court was misled." Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc., 731 F.3d 1171, 1182 (11th Cir. 2013)). In this case, even treating the filing of a civil court complaint as an earlier "proceeding," Epstein does not even attempt to argue that J

tion will not suffice; there must be enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party." Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1577 (11th Cir. 1990). If the evidence advanced by the non- moving party "is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, then summary judgment may be grant