Opinion ID: 1965114
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Court of Special Appeals

Text: The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. It characterized the affidavits as contain[ing] information which contradicted both the previously elicited interrogatory answers of Terran's mother and her deposition testimony, as lengthen[ing] the child's period of residence at [the subject premises] to 5-1/2 months, and as untimely filed because submitted nearly two months [after] the deadline for the completion of discovery. Pittman, 127 Md.App. at 265-66, 732 A.2d at 917. The court noted that [i]f Ms. Hall had erroneously stated the periods of residence, visits, and baby-sitting in her deposition, she had ample opportunity to amend her answers, to clarify these dates, and to provide this information to [Respondents]. [5] Id. at 268-69, 732 A.2d at 919. Thus, the court affirmed the exclusion of the affidavits on the ground of unfair surprise. The court also adopted a rule of federal caselaw (the sham affidavit rule) according to which a party may not defeat summary judgment by offering an affidavit which contradicts unambiguous testimony previously elicited during a deposition. Id. at 267, 732 A.2d at 918 (citing Darnell v. Target Stores, 16 F.3d 174, 176-77 (7th Cir.1994); Barwick v. Celotex Corp., 736 F.2d 946, 959-60 (4th Cir.1984); Van T. Junkins & Assocs. v. U.S. Indus., Inc., 736 F.2d 656, 657-59 (11th Cir.1984)). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment because, without the affidavits, Petitioners could not meet their burden of establishing the necessary element of `substantial causation.' Id. at 270, 732 A.2d at 920. We granted certiorari in order to determine whether to adopt the federal rule. Pittman v. Atlantic Realty Co., 356 Md. 495, 740 A.2d 613 (1999).