Opinion ID: 2997148
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Heller Affidavit

Text: The district court refused to strike Jennifer Heller’s affidavit because the plaintiffs admitted all material facts for which the affidavit was cited in support; thus, the district court reasoned, defendants’ reliance on the Heller affidavit did not prejudice the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs counter that Heller’s affidavit contained a statement with which they did not agree. Yet, we observe that the defendants did not cite to or rely upon the specific paragraph plaintiffs dispute in support of their summaryjudgment motion. Rather, the defendants used Heller’s affidavit solely to outline AT&T Corp.’s corporate structure during the time period relevant to this case and to explain the parent-subsidiary relationships among the various entities at issue. (R. 52, ¶¶ 6-9, 18.) The plaintiffs admitted these particular facts. (R. 59, ¶¶ 6-9, 18.) There is no evidence that the district court, in ruling on the defendants’ summary-judgment motion, relied on Heller’s affidavit except for the propositions for which it was specifically cited (and with which the plaintiffs have no argument). Because Heller’s affidavit in no way prejudiced the plaintiffs’ ability to oppose the defendants’ summaryjudgment motion, the district court properly refused to strike it or to reopen discovery to allow Heller’s deposition.