lose the civil case in summary or default judgment proceedings.” Id. at *1. Moreover, the stay in Ventura was granted on motion of the defendant Miami-Dade County Police Department because it would be prejudiced by its codefendant, a former police officer, asserting the Fifth Amendment and refusing to answer “in response to th

lose the civil case in summary or default judgment proceedings.” Id. at *1. Moreover, the stay in Ventura was granted on motion of the defendant Miami-Dade County Police Department because it would be prejudiced by its codefendant, a former police officer, asserting the Fifth Amendment and refusing to answer “in response to th

to lose the civil case in summary or default judgment proceedings." Id. at *I. Moreover, the stay in Ventura was granted on motion of the defendant Miami-Dade County Police Department because it would be prejudiced by its codefendant, a former police officer, asserting the Fifth Amendment and refusing to answer "in response to th

to lose the civil case in summary or default judgment proceedings." Id. at *1. Moreover, the stay in Ventura was granted on motion of the defendant Miami-Dade County Police Department because it would be prejudiced by its codefendant, a former police officer, asserting the Fifth Amendment and refusing to answer "in response to th

re I am not going to answer that question. Id. at 18-19. Q: If Mr. Fisten represented that he was associated with the Miami-Dade Police Department, Miami-Dade County Police Department, would you find that conduct inappropriate. Id. at 21-24. MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction and I would also observe with regard to each of the hypoth

re I am not going to answer that question. Id. at 18-19. Q: If Mr. Fisten represented that he was associated with the Miami-Dade Police Department, Miami-Dade County Police Department, would you find that conduct inappropriate. Id. at 21-24. MR. SCAROLA: Same instruction and I would also observe with regard to each of the hypoth