Opinion ID: 798880
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Strike the SEC's Counsel's Declaration

Text: Smart argues that summary judgment was inappropriate insofar as it was based on the declaration of the SEC's counsel. Smart contends that the declaration, which summarized the evidence in the case, including investor affidavits and bank records, was not based on counsel's personal knowledge. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's order denying Smart's motion to strike. See Lighton, 209 F.3d at 1227. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(4), affidavits supporting or opposing motions for summary judgment must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated. Even if the district court should have stricken the affidavit, we conclude that any error was harmless given that the investor affidavits and bank records were attached to counsel's affidavit, and investors later provided supplemental affidavits. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 61 (Unless justice requires otherwise, no error in admitting or excluding evidenceor any other error by the court or a partyis ground for granting a new trial, for setting aside a verdict, or for vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order.). [6]