regarding the amount of underreporting and therefore should be estopped from submitting evidence on the issue. This argument will be addressed in the analysis section of the instant memorandum opinion. 2 . By stipulation of the parties, the Court dismissed Counts I and III of defendants' first amended counter-complaint. See joint stipulation and consent judgment entered February 10, 1999. Count I was entitled "Dunkin's Breach of Franchise Agreement” and Count III was entitled "Wrongful Exercise of Lease Option Rights.” See defendants' answer, affirmative defenses and first amended counter-complaint filed Nov. 9, 1998. 3 . The general rule articulated in Traficant is also regularly applied in the summary judgment context. See, e.g., In re Edmond, 934 F.2d 1304, 1308-09 (4th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); U.S. v. Parcels of Land, 903 F.2d 36, 43 (1st
recognizing commonlaw privilege against selfincrimination holding that juveniles request to call parent is assertion of fifth amendment privilege against selfincrimination holding that the drug tax violated the privilege against selfincrimination holding that waiver of privilege against selfincrimination is proceeding specific holding that debtors refusal to submit to a deposition based upon assertion of privilege against selfincrimination justified bankruptcy judges decision to strike the debtors affidavit in support of his motion for summary judgment