ocation of Fifth Amendment by sister of civil defendant in absence of “identity of interests”); Sebastian v. City of Chicago, 2008 WL 2875255 *33-34 (N.D. Ill. 2008)(no adverse inference from invocation of Fifth Amendment in absence of close family or business relationship). Similarly, any other witnesses ta

(2006) ..o.c.ccccccccccceeseseseesetenseseeeeseeesesenecsenssenenseeeeeeeerenes 36 Geraty v. Vill. of Antioch, No. 09 C 6992, 2015 WL 127917, at *7 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 8, 2015) ......... 9 Gordy Co. v. Mary Jane Girls, Inc., No. 86 CIV. 6814 (RWS), 1989 WL 28477, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 1989) oo. cccccccccese

her than afforded some alternate means of communicating her views") (emphasis in original), with United States v. Marcello, 370 F. Supp. 2d 745, 749 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (holding that "in detention hearings, the victim's right to be reasonably heard does not mandate oral statements, particularly when the [victim

d States v. Hanhardt, 156 F. Supp. 2d 988, 1000 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 50(a)). Conclusi

ege to “explain how the act of producing documents would pose a real danger of incrimination.” Bear Sterns & Co. v. Wyler, 182 F.Supp. 2d 679, 681 (N.D. Ill. 2002). Defendant’s reliance on United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000), is inadequate. In Hubbell, it was apparent from the breadth of the

v. DRH Cambridge Homes, Inc., 262 F.Supp.2d 923 (N.D. Ill. 2003). Epstein has the right to object to these

neral federal policy against indiscriminate disclosure of tax returns from any source. Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Krueger, 55 F.R.D. 514-15 (N.D. Ill. 1972)("it is the opinion of this court that [§6103] reflect[s] a valid public policy against disclosure of income tax returns. This policy is groun

neral federal policy against indiscriminate disclosure of tax returns from any source. Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Krueger, 55 F.R.D. 514-15 (N.D. Ill. 1972)("it is the opinion of this court that [§6103] reflect[s] a valid public policy against disclosure of income tax returns. This policy is groun

It is not at all apparent from the Magistrate Judge’s Order that this was done. See Bear Stearns, Inc. v. Wyler, Inc., 182 F.Supp. 2d 679, 681-82 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (rejecting assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege, noting that the defendant “does little to explain how the act of producing documents would

the party claims a ‘personal right or privilege’ regarding the documents sought.” Chaikin v. Fidelity and Guaranty Life Ins. Co., 2003 WL 22715826 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (emphasis supplied). Defendant Epstein does not claim any personal right or privilege regarding the documents sought, nor could he. 3. In

& Healthcare, No. 98-C-4818, 1999 WL 46898 *2-*3 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 28, 1999), and there is good reason to do s

neral federal policy against indiscriminate disclosure of tax returns from any source. Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Krueger, 55 F.R.D. 514-15 (N.D. Ill. 1972)("it is the opinion of this court that [§6103] reflect[s] a valid public policy against disclosure of income tax returns. This policy is groun

e Court should not permit such misleading briefing to carry the day. Cf. Loeffel Steel Prod., Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc., 387 F. Supp. 2d 794, 823 (N.D. Ill. 2005) ("ellipses are not a cure for misquotation and indeed are often the vehicle for misleading. See Posner, OVERCOMING LAW, 277 (1995) ("Beware a

e Court should not permit such misleading briefing to carry the day. Cf. Loeffel Steel Prod., Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc., 387 F. Supp. 2d 794, 823 (N.D. Ill. 2005) ("ellipses are not a cure for misquotation and indeed are often the vehicle for misleading. See Posner, OVERCOMING LAW, 277 (1995) ("Beware a

parties as well.' Stein v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n, 2017 WL 3141903, at *11 (D.D.C. July 24, 2017) (quoting Kanter v. IRS, 433 F. Supp. 812, 817 (N.D. Ill. 1977)). In order to demonstrate that Exemption 7(A) applies, the government must show that (1) "the requested records were compiled for law enforce