Opinion ID: 2994670
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mrs. Kalis’ Affidavit

Text: Ms. Kalis first argues that the affidavit submitted by her mother in support of the motion for additional discovery merely supplements and clarifies prior sworn testimony, and the district court therefore erroneously struck the affidavit as contradicting her mother’s prior testimony. We review a district court’s decision to strike or disregard parts of an affidavit in opposition to a motion for summary judgment for an abuse of discretion. See Adusumilli v. City of Chicago, 164 F.3d 353, 359 (7th Cir. 1988). Under this standard, ’[d]ecisions that are reasonable, i.e., not arbitrary, will not be questioned. . . .’ Id. (citations omitted). Here the district court carefully evaluated the answers to the interrogatories as well as the prior deposition testimony of Mrs. Kalis to determine whether there were contradictions between the discovery responses and the affidavit. In her interrogatory answers, Ms. Kalis identified the brand name of the fondue fuel that exploded and injured her as True Value. During her deposition, Mrs. Kalis disclaimed any knowledge of the manufacturer, shape, or volume of the container for the fuel. She also stated that she could think of nothing that would refresh her recollection concerning the brand name of the fuel. However, in her affidavit, Mrs. Kalis stated that, after viewing photocopies of pictures shown to her by counsel, she now believe[s] that the product which [she] bought in April 1986 at Millen True Value Hardware in Wilmette, Illinois was Sterno liquid fondue fuel in a container the same as or very similar to the one depicted in the photocopies [her] lawyer showed to [her]. R.49, Ex.C at 2. As a general rule, the law of this circuit does not permit a party to create an issue of fact by submitting an affidavit whose conclusions contradict prior deposition or other sworn testimony. Buckner v. Sam’s Club, Inc., 75 F.3d 290, 292 (7th Cir. 1996). Consequently, we must determine whether Mrs. Kalis’ affidavit contradicts her prior sworn testimony. In doing so, we find our decision in Buckner v. Sam’s Club, Inc. instructive. In Buckner, a plaintiff had stepped on an object which caused her to fall and injure herself; despite a search, the item that caused the fall was never recovered. When deposed, Mrs. Buckner stated that she did not know what the object was, but described it as something uneven and faulty and then as a lump under her foot. Id. at 292. In a later affidavit in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, however, Mrs. Buckner stated that she stepped on a small object that ’felt to be about the size of a ladies watch, which is one of the types of items that were on the display tables.’ Id. The district court in Buckner excluded the affidavit as a ’clear attempt by plaintiffs to shore up obvious gaps in their prima facie case with phantom evidence’ that was contradictory to her sworn deposition testimony. Id. In upholding the district court’s ruling, this court noted: In the context of opposing a motion for summary judgment, and when contrasted with a clear prior statement disclaiming knowledge of the object, this highly specific description appears to be an effort to undo (contradict) the effects of the deposition testimony and thereby establish the missing causal link between the store and the fall. This is certainly a conclusion the district court could have rationally made, which for purposes of our review was not an abuse of discretion. Id. at 293. The same is true here. Mrs. Kalis has, from the beginning, disclaimed any knowledge of the manufacturer of the fon due fuel and never was able to identify an object or document that might refresh her memory. However, long after the close of discovery, Mrs. Kalis viewed pictures provided by Ms. Kalis’ attorney, those pictures allegedly refreshed her memory, and Mrs. Kalis was then able to state conclusively that Sterno was the brand name on the bottle. Like the affidavit presented in Buckner, Mrs. Kalis’ affidavit does not function to clarify prior statements, but it appears to be an effort to undo (contradict) the effects of the deposition testimony. Id.; see also Adusumilli, 164 F.3d at 360 (upholding district court’s action in striking affidavit as contradicting prior testimony where the affidavit reported incidents of sexual harassment and the plaintiff previously had testified that she [could] not recall any incidents of harassment in 1992); Slowiak v. Land O’Lakes, Inc., 987 F.2d 1293, 1296 (7th Cir. 1993) (finding a direct contradiction between an antitrust plaintiff’s deposition testimony that he could not remember any specific instance in which he wanted to charge more but didn’t and his affidavit statement that ’[i]f Schweigert had not fixed the price that I had to charge my customers, there would have been many occasions on which I would have charged more for many of the Schweigert products I sold’). Here, the district court’s application of our well-established rule that affidavits in conflict with prior sworn testimony should be disregarded was not an abuse of discretion. Adusumilli, 164 F.3d at 360.