Page 6 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139535, * that Epstein is free from future criminal prosecution, and that in fact, "the threat of prosecution is real, substantial, and present." Id. By this Motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel answers to certain interrogatories and requests for production that were propounded December 9, 2008. Defendant has responded by asserting several r 9] objections, the primary one of which is an assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege. The Fifth Amendment serves as a guarantee against testimonial compulsion and provides, in relevant part, that "[n]o person...shall be compelled in any Criminal Case to be a witness against himself." Id. In practice, the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination "permits a person not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985)(citing Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S. Ct. 316, 38 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1973)). The privilege is accorded "liberal construction in favor of the right it was intended to secure," Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S. Ct. 814, 95 L. Ed. 1118 (1951), and extends not only to answers that would in themselves support a criminal conviction, but extends also to those answers which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a crime. Id.; Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159, 71 S. Ct. 223, 95 L. Ed. 170 (1950). Thus, information is protected by the privilege not only if it would support a criminal conviction, but also in those instances where "the responses would merely 'provide a lead or clue' to evidence having a tendency to incriminate." United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1239 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 925, 100 S. Ct. 3018, 65 L. Ed. 2d 1117 (1980). The Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination comes