Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 306 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2015 Page 16 of 19 adversaries, Jane Doe #3 argues that Prof. Dershowitz should not be allowed to intervene in this action’®. It is clear from the record, however, that Prof. Dershowitz acted immediately to defend himself the first time he was made aware of any such allegations against him. In fact, just six days after Jane Doe #3 filed her Motion for Joinder, which included vicious allegations against him, Prof. Dershowitz filed his Motion for Limited Intervention. (DE 282.) Accordingly, Prof. Dershowitz should be permitted to intervene for the limited purposes of moving to strike these outrageous and impertinent allegations. V. Jane Doe #3’s Reliance on Other’s Invocation of the Fifth Amendment is Improper and Wholly Unpersuasive Without a shred of physical evidence or witness corroboration for Jane Doe #3’s fantasies, she relies on invocations of the Fifth Amendment by Epstein as supportive of an adverse inference as to Prof. Dershowitz. Given that Epstein was taking the Fifth Amendment on virtually all questions, and would have responded in the same way had the opposite questions been asked, there is no inference against Prof. Dershowitz to be made from the invocation of the Fifth Amendment by Epstein’. Epstein’s interest — in declining to answer any questions whatsoever — was his own personal interest and not that of his lawyers, and lacks even minimal relevance. Coguina Investments v. TD Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 1300, 1310-11 (11th Cir. 2014)(adverse inferences from the fifth amendment invocation by third parties allowed only * Jane Doe #3’s argument that he has not yet scheduled his deposition in this case, or the recently filed defamation action, is of no moment. At the appropriate time, Prof. Dershowitz will of course, appear for his deposition and testify that Jane Doe #3’s allegations as to him are entirely false. This, however, has no bearing as to whether the Court should permit the limite