Am. Eagle Bank v. Friedman (In re Friedman)

4 Citing cases

  1. CCP GOLDEN/7470 LLC v. Breslin

    21 C 4081 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 28, 2024)

    ” In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litig., 295 F.3d 651, 663-64 (7th Cir. 2002); see also Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951) (“The witness is not exonerated from answering merely because he declares that in so doing he would incriminate himself-his say-so does not of itself establish the hazard of incrimination.”); In re Friedman, 543 B.R. 833, 839 (Bankr. N.D.Ill. 2015) (“An individual does not have a free hand to refuse to answer any and all questions by virtue of the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause

  2. DiOrio v. Griffin (In re Vision Adventures, LLC)

    544 B.R. 277 (Bankr. D.R.I. 2016)

    For example, the debtor in In re Friedman alleged that he was under criminal investigation without providing any evidence of such an investigation or even minimal facts on which the court could infer the possibility of prosecution, leaving the court to conclude that the debtor was in no real fear of prosecution. 543 B.R. 833, 839–40 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2015). Nor will a blanket assertion of the privilege satisfy the claimant's burden.

  3. Old Second Nat'l Bank v. Sanfratello (In re Sanfratello)

    Case No. 17 B 242 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Jun. 1, 2018)

    When notice of the second deposition was sent to his attorney, Sanfratello appeared. Unlike debtors in other cases, there are no allegations that Sanfratello lied about his income, Marcus-Rehtmeyer, 784 F. 3rd 430, or directed proceeds to his wife's account rather than his own, American Eagle Bank v. Friedman (In re Friedman), 543 B.R. 833, 845-46 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2015), or closed a bank account to prevent his assets from being frozen, Cannell, 2014 WL 3725929. In the court's view, the facts of this case add up to a debtor who was distracted, who did not give the citation proceeding the attention it required, but whose actions do not demonstrate intent to hinder or delay.

  4. Reid v. Wolf (In re Wolf)

    Case No. 14 B 27066 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. May. 24, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    This court, in its discretion, therefore finds any objection on the basis of the Fifth Amendment as it relates to the production of access to the Cloud Server to have been waived on that basis as well. See United Auto. Ins. Co. v. Veluchamy, 747 F. Supp. 2d 1021, 1026-27 (N.D. Ill. 2010); In re Friedman, 543 B.R. 833, 843-44 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2015); Pham v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 193 F.R.D. 659, 661-62 (D. Colo. 2000) (noting that Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C) should be interpreted similarly to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4)); Deal v. Lutheran Hosps. & Homes, 127 F.R.D. 166, 168 (D. Alaska 1989) ("It appears to the court that on principle, and except to avoid manifest injustice, procedures under Rule 45(d)(1) and under Rules 33, 34, and 36 should be similar, if not identical."); Orchestratehr, Inc. v. Trombetta, No. 3:13-CV-2110-P, 2015 WL 11120526, at *9 (N.D. Tex. July 15, 2015); Pine Glades Dev., LLC v. Sullivan Constr., LLC, No. 09-CV-129-D, 2011 WL 13165147, at *2 (D. Wyo. Jan. 26, 2011); Georgia-Pac., LLC v. Diversified Transfer & Storage, Inc., No. 10-CV-083-F, 2011 WL 13079471, at *2 (D. Wyo. Jan. 31, 2011); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C).