United States of America v. $506,069.09 Seized from First Merit Bank, Reality Savings Acct #901560000417, et al.,

Filing 65

Opinion and Order (Nunc Pro Tunc) denying Claimants' Motion for reconsideration of 60 the Court's order of 2/24/15. Related Doc # 62 . Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 2/26/15.(P,R). Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 2/26/15. (P,R)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
$506,069.09 Seized from First Merit Bank,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:14 CV 23
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
OPINION AND ORDER
NUNC PRO TUNC

This case is before the Court yet again on Claimants’ Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court’s Order of February 24, 2015. (Doc #: 62 (“Motion”)). The Court has reviewed the
Motion and the Government’s opposition brief (Doc #: 63).
Claimants devoted a significant amount of their Reconsideration Motion to distinguishing
this case from In re Morganroth, 718 F.2d 161, 167 (6th Cir. 1983). (See Motion at 2-4.) The
Court cited Morganroth for the general, long-held principle that one cannot make blanket
assertions of the Fifth Amendment privilege and the reasons why.
Again, “[a] valid assertion of the fifth amendment privilege exists where a witness has
reasonable cause to apprehend a real danger of incrimination.” Morganroth, 718 F.2d at 167
(citing Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951)). “A witness must, however, show a
‘real danger,’ and not a mere imaginary, remote or speculative possibility of prosecution.” Id.
(citations omitted). “A blanket assertion of the privilege by a witness is not sufficient to meet

the reasonable cause requirement and the privilege cannot be claimed in advance of the
questions. The privilege must be asserted by a witness with respect to particular questions, and
in each instance, the court must determine the propriety of the refusal to testify.” Id. (citing
Hoffman, 341 U.S. at 486-88.)
Mrs. Zaidi has not been named in the indictment issued against her husband. (See Case
No. 1:14 CR 299.) And the Government represents that she is not a target of a criminal
investigation. The fact that Mrs. Zaidi may be called as a witness in her husband’s criminal
prosecution, should he ever return to this country, is an insufficient basis upon which to make a
blanket assertion of that privilege preceding her deposition in this civil forfeiture case. And it is
altogether unacceptable for Mrs. Zaidi to determine whether her personal appearance at the CMC
is necessary despite a federal court order requiring her to be here.
Mrs. Zaidi has been stringing the Court along for months, allowing her time to make
preparations to fly to the United States for two days to attend her deposition and the CMC. For
these reasons, along with all the reasons previously addressed, Claimants’ Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court’s Order of February 24, 2015 (Doc #: 62) is DENIED.
If Mrs. Zaidi fails to appear tomorrow as ordered, the Court will dismiss her claim
against the assets that are the subject of this civil case for want of prosecution.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/Dan A. Polster February 26, 2015
Dan Aaron Polster
United States District Judge

-2-