Source: https://www.illinoisbusinesslitigationlawyer.com/summaryjudgment/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:32:56+00:00

Document:
The Fifth Amendment provides that “[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself[.]” U.S. Const. amend. V. This privilege guarantees an individual’s right “to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will, and to suffer no penalty . . . for his silence.” Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 760-61, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1830-31, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966).
The privilege may be “asserted in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory;it protects against any disclosures which the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used.” Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 444-45, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). The privilege not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute a claimant for a crime. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.Ct. 814, 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951). “This provision of the Amendment must be accorded liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended to secure.” Id. at 486.
In evaluating the Debtor’s assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the Court first looks to whether the Debtor has properly asserted the privilege, and, if so, then whether he waived the privilege through prior statements.
In short, both because the Debtor has failed properly to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege and because he waived it, he is unable to rely on the privilege in his response to the Motion to Summary Judgment. Moreover, because the Debtor cannot rely on the Fifth Amendment privilege here, the Court will treat the Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission as admitted under the default rule found in Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3).
A motion for summary judgment is granted if the movant can demonstrate no genuine dispute as to any material fact. F.R.B.P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists the Court must construe all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Popovits v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 185 F.3d 726, 731 (7th Cir. 1999). Here, the Court ruled that there was no genuine issue of material fact.
The Court held that the Plaintiff showed that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to Count IV. Accordingly, Summary Judgment was granted on that Count alone.

References: V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.