Dian Oved, Appellant, v. LLC (2024)

Affirmed. See Eagle Hosp. Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F.3d 1298, 1304–06 (11th Cir. 2009) (affirming ultimate sanction of dismissal because “in a civil suit such as this one, the court may draw adverse inferences against a party that invokes the Fifth Amendment” and the court “reasonably inferred that [a party] had engaged in extensive and disruptive surveillance of privileged communications” such that “neither [the other party] nor the court would know the extent of [the party's] activities or how [the misconduct] would prejudice [the other party's] position in the litigation”); Atlas v. Atlas, 708 So. 2d 296, 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“[T]he Supreme Court held that a court may draw an adverse inference against a party in a civil action who invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.”) (emphasis in original); Bowe v. State, 785 So. 2d 531, 533 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (denying motion for rehearing because party “offered the [machine generated] ‘statement’ not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but to show that the recipient of the [device] was the [other party], since the [device] appeared [at their location]”) (emphasis in original).

PER CURIAM.