The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT, DO COURTS OFTEN MAKE CREDIBILITY DETERMINATION
| Startled school cafeteria milk | 10/26/16 |
| Self-centered Pale Station | 10/26/16 |
| Startled school cafeteria milk | 10/26/16 |
| Self-centered Pale Station | 10/26/16 |
| Blathering Public Bath Masturbator | 10/26/16 |
| Blathering Public Bath Masturbator | 10/26/16 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: October 26th, 2016 6:26 PM Author: Startled school cafeteria milk SEEMS LIKE they fuckin always do that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3399864&forum_id=2#31733267) |
Date: October 26th, 2016 6:27 PM Author: Self-centered Pale Station They can't judge the relative credibility of the evidence in deciding the motion? Link? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3399864&forum_id=2#31733279) |
 |
Date: October 26th, 2016 6:28 PM Author: Startled school cafeteria milk In reviewing these facts, the Second Circuit held that the district court was “entitled to disregard Dr. Epstein’s new testimony relating to his knowledge based on the ‘sham issue of fact’ doctrine, which prohibits a party from defeating summary judgment simply by submitting an affidavit that contradicts the party’s previous sworn testimony.” Slip op. at *3. The court continued: “Although we have typically applied the sham issue of fact doctrine where a party submits an affidavit that contradicts the party’s own prior statements, it may also apply when a party attempts to use evidence from an expert witness to defeat summary judgment.” Id. The court applied the doctrine to stop Plaintiff from manufacturing a factual issue in an effort to reverse summary judgment. Id.
The court noted that “[h]ad there been some readily apparent, plausible explanation for these inconsistencies, or had [Plaintiff] proffered such an explanation,” it might have concluded that the district court erred in rejecting Epstein’s testimony. While acknowledging Plaintiff’s argument that “credibility determinations are left to the jury,” the court once again emphasized the suspicious timing of Dr. Epstein’s revised testimony, the “unequivocal nature of the contradictions“, and a “lack of explanation for the change in testimony“, as well as the centrality of Epstein’s testimony to Plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claim. The court was careful to reiterate the “unique circumstances” under which it affirmed the lower court’s rejection of such testimony.
The Secrest court’s reasoning highlights an important tension between the need for judicial efficiency and the need to leave credibility determinations for finders of fact. In general, courts are cautious in their application of the “sham affidavit” rule and “sham issue of fact” doctrine. As one district court explained in a December 2012 decision, “some form of the sham affidavit rule is necessary” to maintain the principle that summary judgment procedure is “‘an integral part of the Federal Rules as a whole, which are designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.'” U.S. v. Zhong, No. C 11-5112 MEJ, 2012 WL 6201348, at *10 (N. D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2012) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327 (1986)). The Zhong court continued: “At the same time, however, it must be recognized that the sham affidavit rule is in tension with the principle that a court’s role in deciding a summary judgment motion is not to make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence. Aggressive invocation of the rule also threatens to ensnare parties who may have simply been confused during their deposition testimony and may encourage gamesmanship by opposing attorneys. We have thus recognized that the sham affidavit rule ‘should be applied with caution.'” Id. at *11 (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F. 3d 1255, 1264 (9th Cir. 1993)). |
|
Date: October 26th, 2016 6:39 PM Author: Self-centered Pale Station CA2 in fight of life to make sure shitlawyers can't make any money (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3399864&forum_id=2#31733389) |
|
Date: October 26th, 2016 6:29 PM Author: Blathering Public Bath Masturbator SSM what's up brother?? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3399864&forum_id=2#31733299) |
|
Date: October 26th, 2016 6:30 PM Author: Blathering Public Bath Masturbator Btw. I think the court did the right thing here we can't be scheduling some bullshit trial bc a doctor perjured himself. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3399864&forum_id=2#31733313) |