Epstein Cites Fifth Amendment to Block Discovery in Lawsuit Against Edwards

Amendment. As a result, under the “sword and shield doctrine” widely recognized in Florida saseloun his suit must be dismissed. _ “[TJhe law is well settled that a plaintiffis not entitled to both his silence and his lawsuit.” Boys & Girls Clubs of Marion County, Ine. v. J.A., 22 So.3d 855, 856 (Fla. 5th Dist. ct. App. 2009) (Griffin, J., concurring specially). Thus, “a person may not seek affirmative relief in a civil action and then invoke the fifth amendment to avoid giving discovery, using the fifth amendment as both a ‘sword and a shield.’”” DePalma v. DePalma, 538 So.2d 1290, 1290 (F 18 4" Dist. Ct. App. 1989) (quoting DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance Co., 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4" Dist. Ct. App. 1983)). Put another way, “[a] civil litigant’s fifth amendment right to avoid self inetimination may be used as a shield but not a sword. This means that a plaintiff seeking affirmative relief in a civil action may not invoke the fifth amendment and refuse to comply with the defendant’s discovery requests, thereby thwarting the defendant’s defenses.” Rollins Burdick Hunter of New York, Inc. v. Euroclassic Limited, Inc., 502 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3 Dist. Court App. 1983) Here, Epstein is trying to do precisely what the “well settled” law forbids. Specifically, he is trying to obtain “affirmative relief” —i.e., forcing Edwards to pay money damages — while simultaneously precluding Edwards from obtaining legitimate discovery at the heart of the allegations that form the basis for the relief Epstein is seeking. As recounted more fully in the statement of undisputed facts, Epstein has refused to answer such basic questions about his lawsuit as: e “Specifically what are the allegations against you which you contend Mr. Edwards ginned up?” e “Well, which of Mr. Edwards’ cases do you contend were fabricated?” 17 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013386