Opinion ID: 161851
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sham Facts Issues

Text: 45 Contradictions found in a witness' testimony are not, in themselves, sufficient to preclude such testimony. Indeed, we have previously noted that in determining whether a material issue of fact exists, an affidavit may not be disregarded [merely] because it conflicts with the affiant's prior sworn statements. Franks v. Nimmo, 796 F.2d 1230, 1237 (10th Cir. 1986) (citing 10A C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure 2738, at 473-74 (2d ed. 1983); 6 (Part 2) J. Moore & J. Wicker, Moore's Federal Practice 56.22[1], at 56-1325 to 56-1326 (1985 ed.)). However, we have also held that there are situations where a district court may be justified in disregarding certain contradictory testimony, noting that courts will disregard a contrary affidavit when they conclude that it constitutes an attempt to create a sham fact issue. Franks, 796 F.2d at 1237 (emphasis added). 46 To determine whether a contradicting affidavit seeks to create a sham fact issue, we have looked to three factors: whether: (1) the affiant was cross-examined during his earlier testimony; (2) the affiant had access to the pertinent evidence at the time of his earlier testimony or whether the affidavit was based on newly discovered evidence; and (3) the earlier testimony reflects confusion which the affidavit attempts to explain. Rios v. Bigler, 67 F.3d 1543, 1551 (10th Cir. 1995). 47 Turning to these factors, Ralston does not and, indeed, cannot dispute that the record amply discloses that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Dr. Bohn's declarations of October 3rd and October 11th. There is no question that Dr. Bohn was cross-examined during his March 1999 deposition; that he had access to the pertinent evidence at the time of his deposition; and that there was nothing in the earlier deposition testimony reflecting any level of confusion or uncertainty concerning Dr. Bohn's testimony requiring clarification or explanation. Moreover, the October 3rd Declaration came into existence more than a year and a half after Dr. Bohn's March 1999 deposition, and only after Ralston's counsel had abandoned all other claims and decided to focus only upon Ralston's failure to warn cause of action. 48 Given these circumstances, it is not an abuse of discretion to conclude as the district court did that these subsequent affidavits, which directly contradicted certain positions previously taken by Dr. Bohn and which were detrimental to Ralston's sole remaining cause of action, constituted those kinds of affidavits which fall within the ambit of creating a sham fact issue. Consequently, the district court was entitled to rely on Dr. Bohn's March 1999 deposition testimony without regard to his later declarations in rendering its summary judgment ruling.