collateral estoppel, which, unlike federal law, does generally require mutuality of parties for the application of collateral estoppel. That is, in contrast to Gelb, generally, Ohio law. does not permit a person not party to a prior lawsuit to invoke offensive collateral estoppel. See id. The third and fourth cases cited by the defendants on this issue are factually inapposite to the present case. See Edwell v. Chase, Nos. 05-cv-19, 05-cv-34, 05-cv-43, 2005 WL 3664804, *4 (D.N.M. Dec. 7, 2005) (finding that a defendant was not collaterally estopped from denying plaintiffs’ claims merely because the plaintiffs had offered testimony against the defendant in a prior case in which the defendant was found liable); National Acceptance Co. of America v. Bathalter, 705 F.2d 924 (7th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). By contrast, other courts have expressly held
holding that a valid assertion of the fifth amendment privilege in a civil case may not be treated as an admission that allegations are true holding that denial of reduction for acceptance of responsibility was a penalty which could not be imposed for defendants assertion of fifth amendment privilege recognizing that policy reasons undergirding assertion of fifth amendment privilege outside jurys presence apply even if privilege is invalid holding that juveniles request to call parent is assertion of fifth amendment privilege against selfincrimination holding that the statement ill take the fifth was an assertion of the fifth amendment privilege