Opinion ID: 175190
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Walp Affidavit

Text: Montaño also submitted the affidavit of Glenn Walp, who the University hired as Office Leader of the Office of Security Inquiries in January 2002. Walp stated that the Lab came under intense scrutiny from the DOE at that time, and as Walp began identifying “major theft problems” within the Lab, his supervisors “did everything they could to thwart [his] investigations . . . .” J.A. at 688-89. Walp further stated that the Lab fired him in November 2002, and that he later testified before Congress concerning the Lab’s mismanagement. Id. at 690-91. The district court struck this affidavit in its entirety because it was “totally irrelevant,” and “rife with inadmissible hearsay, as Walp recounts the statements of non-parties, the content of newspaper articles, the content of unattached DOE reports, and his own statements at a Congressional hearing.” Id. at 1045. On appeal, Montaño contends that Walp’s affidavit was relevant “to show that defendants were on notice of significant problems at the Lab, and that Congress and DOE were actively investigating those problems.” Aplt. Br. at 25. Walp’s affidavit is relevant for this purpose, but it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to exclude it. Montaño does not address the district court’s 7 (...continued) Constr. & Supply Co., 577 F.3d 1164, 1170 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing Anderson for the proposition that “[w]e do not require an affidavit to authenticate every document submitted for consideration at summary judgment”). 19 remaining rationale for excluding the affidavit—that it was rife with hearsay. 8 And Montaño’s affidavit already explains how the Lab hired Walp and his subordinates “to control the negative publicity and increased scrutiny arising from the Lab’s severe mismanagement.” Id. at 654.