ant must be 'confronted by substantial and 'real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination."' See generally. United States v. Apfelbaum. 445 9 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 10 of 15 Page 10 U.S. 115, 128, 100 S.Ct. 948, 956, 63 L.

nary, hazards of incrimination.” United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). When the Fifth Amendme

7)). "The claimant must be 'confronted by substantial and 'real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). Accordingly, for these reasons, Epstein's objections to the Magistrate's Order should be sustained, and this Court shoul

nary, hazards of incrimination." United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). Accordingly, response

nary, hazards of incrimination.” United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Docum

o Plaintiffs discovery requests. United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). The Fifth Amendment s

minal nature, such as threats of liability in civil suits.’” United States v. Conces, 507 F.3d 1028, 1040 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 125 (1980)). It is Epstein’s burden to “demonstrate a real danger of incrimination if he were to respond to any particular discover

o Plaintiffs discovery requests. United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). The Fifth Amendment

he claimant must [also] be 'confronted by substantial and 'real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). Accordingly, responses to the requests propounded upon Epstein would provide information which is protected by the privi

nary, hazards of incrimination.” United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). When the Fifth Amendme

sult in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 and United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 128. The Court's order seems to hone in on the "required records" exception for the proposition that, as a matter of law, Epstein's pe

17)). “The claimant must be ‘confronted by substantial and ‘real,’ and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination.” United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). When the Fifth Amendment privilege is raised as a bar to discovery, a blanket refusal to answer questions or to produce do

sult in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 and United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 128. The Court's order seems to piggyback on DE 462 (a similar order), and thus seems to hone in on the "required records" exception f

antial and 'real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazard[] of incrimination" when it comes to Plaintiffs discovery requests. United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128 (1980). (i) The Fifth Amendment and Plaintiffs' Rule 4 Appeal The Fifth Amendment serves as a guarantee against testimonial com

sult in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 and United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 128. The Court's order seems to hone in on the "required records" exception for the proposition that, as a matter of law, Epstein's pe

laimant must be 'confronted by substantial and 'real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination.' generally, United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 9 EFTA00067391 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03'25'2009 Page 10 of 15 Page 10 U.S. 115, 128, 100 S.Ct. 948,

ant must be 'confronted by substantial and 'real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination." See generally, United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 128, 100 S.Ct. 948, 956, 63 L.Ed.2d 250 (1980)). See also, United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U

. The danger Epstein faces by being forced to testify in this instance is "substantial and real, and not merely trifling or imaginary" as required. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 128. Accordingly, finding the subject requests involve compelled statements that would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to

sult in criminal prosecution. See generally Hoffman v United States, 341 U.S. at 486; United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. at 36 and United States v, Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 128. The Court's order seems to hone in on the "required records" exception for the proposition that, as a matter of law, Epstein's pe

laimant must be 'confronted by substantial and 'real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination.' generally, United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 9 EFTA00222533 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 65 Entered on FLSD Docket 03'25'2009 Page 10 of 15 Page 10 U.S. 115, 128, 100 S.Ct. 948,