HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010751.jpg

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 17 of 19 where inference is “trustworthy under all of the circumstances” including relationship, shared interest and control); Kontos v. Kontos, 968 F.Supp. 400, 407-408 (1997) (no adverse inference allowed from invocation 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 taking the Fifth Amendment and remaining silent to protect themselves are obviously not creating any kind of evidence against Prof. Dershowitz. See, Coquina Investments, 760 F.3d at 1310 (11th Cir. 2014). Conclusion In conclusion, Prof. Dershowitz has no interest in joining this case other than to strike the scurrilous and irrelevant allegations against him. If the Court grants Jane Does #3 and #4 motion for joinder (DE 279), then Prof. Dershowitz’s motion for limited intervention should be granted for such purposes as may be appropriate including submitting a motion to strike or other relief, so as to give him an opportunity to defend himself against harmful, defamatory and false allegations of the worse kind. If the Court rejects the pending motion for joinder, then the Court should strike the scurrilous allegations against Dershowitz, or, alternatively, determine the possible mootness of his Motion for Limited Intervention. Of course, if the Court strikes the allegations against him sua sponte, Prof. Dershowitz will withdraw his motion for limited intervention. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kendall Coffey Kendall Coffey, Fla. Bar No. 259681 kcoffey@coffeyburlington.com Gabriel Groisman, Fla. Bar No. 25644 ggroisman@coffeyburlington.com 17 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_010751