HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013316.jpg

1.64 MB

Extraction Summary

3
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal filing (opposition to motion for summary judgment)
File Size: 1.64 MB
Summary

This document is page 13 of Bradley Edwards' legal opposition to Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment in a civil case (Case No. 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG). Edwards argues that Epstein cannot seek affirmative relief (damages/summary judgment) while simultaneously invoking the Fifth Amendment to refuse discovery, citing the 'sword and shield' legal doctrine. The document concludes by requesting the denial of Epstein's motion.

People (3)

Name Role Context
Jeffrey Epstein Plaintiff/Movant
Seeking Summary Judgment; accused of using the Fifth Amendment as a 'sword and shield' to avoid discovery.
Bradley Edwards Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
Opposing Epstein's motion and arguing that Epstein cannot seek relief while refusing discovery.
Griffin, J. Judge
Judge cited in case law (Boys & Girls Clubs of Marion County, Inc. v. J.A.).

Organizations (5)

Name Type Context
House Oversight Committee
Source of the document (indicated by footer stamp).
Boys & Girls Clubs of Marion County, Inc.
Cited in legal argument regarding silence vs. lawsuit.
Rollins Burdick Hunter of New York, Inc.
Cited in legal argument regarding civil litigants' Fifth Amendment rights.
Bankers Insurance Co.
Cited in legal argument.
Euroclassic Limited, Inc.
Cited in legal argument.

Timeline (1 events)

Unknown
Motion for Summary Judgment
Court (likely Florida)

Locations (1)

Location Context
Implied by case citations (Fla. 5th DCA, Fla. 4th DCA).

Relationships (1)

Jeffrey Epstein Legal Adversaries Bradley Edwards
Edwards is the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff opposing Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Key Quotes (3)

"“[T]he law is well settled that a plaintiff is not entitled to both his silence and his lawsuit.”"
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013316.jpg
Quote #1
"Epstein could not seek damages from Edwards while at the same time asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege to block relevant discovery."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013316.jpg
Quote #2
"Epstein has done precisely what well-established law prohibits."
Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013316.jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,199 characters)

Case No.: 502009CA040800XXXXMBAG
Edwards' Opposition to Epstein's Motion for Summary Judgment
Page 13 of 15
arguments advanced in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment. Under the well-established “sword and shield” doctrine, Epstein could not seek damages from Edwards while at the same time asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege to block relevant discovery. See Exhs. B at 14-21, C at 18-25, G at 53:6-24; 78:16-24; 87:20-88:14. The same policies which underlie the sword and shield doctrine as applied to the recovery of affirmative relief should also apply to attempts to advance positions with respect to a Motion for Summary Judgment which would have the effect of securing relief against certain claims.
“[T]he law is well settled that a plaintiff is not entitled to both his silence and his lawsuit.” Boys & Girls Clubs of Marion County, Inc. v. J.A., 22 So. 3d 855, 856 (Fla. 5th DCA 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 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)(quoting DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance Co., 436 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)). Put another way, “[a] civil litigant’s fifth amendment right to avoid self-incrimination 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. 3d DCA 1983).. For the same reasons, Epstein should be precluded from advancing arguments based on purported statements of undisputed fact which cannot be effectively challenged in light of his assertion of the Fifth Amendment. Epstein has done precisely what well-established law prohibits.
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, the Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff, Bradley Edwards respectfully submits that Jeffrey Epstein’s Motion for Summary Judgment must be denied.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013316

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document