Friday, July 10, 2015

A Sham or Just Self-Serving? Either Way, Affidavits Are Admissible

Defense counsel, during the course of taking plaintiff’s deposition in an employment case, extracts damning admissions.  The defense, relying on those admissions.  In opposition, Plaintiff submits his/her own affidavit addressing and attempting to moderate, qualify, or deny the damning admissions.  Defense asserts that Plaintiff’s affidavit is a so-called “sham” affidavit.  Plaintiff’s counsel argues that it merely “clarifies” the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and should thus be considered.

Sound familiar?

Or, Defendant moves for summary judgment, and Plaintiff files an affidavit attempting to establish disputed material facts.  Defendant says that plaintiff’s affidavit is self-serving.  Plaintiff asserts that all testimony by parties is self-serving, and that her/his self-serving affidavit is no different, and should be considered.

Sound familiar?

How do the courts approach these issues? 

1.      Sham Affidavits

The first example above demonstrates what is sometimes called a “sham” affidavit.  The Fourth Circuit, in Barwick v. Celotex Corp., described the “sham affidavit” rule as follows: [a] genuine issue of material fact is not created where the only issue of fact is to determine which of the two conflicting versions of plaintiff’s testimony is correct.”  736 F.2d 946, 960 (4th Cir. 1984).  Rather than submit such an issue to the factfinder for determination, the Fourth Circuit held that it was appropriate to strike the affidavit.  Id.  Similarly, in Perma Research & Dev. Co. v. The Singer Co., the Second Circuit held that a party cannot create “sham issues of fact” to defeat summary judgment by contradicting earlier deposition testimony in a subsequent affidavit.  410 F.2d 572, 578 (1969); see also Radobenko v. Automated Equip. Co., 520 F.2d 540 (9th Cir. 1975) (“sham issues…should not subject the defendants to the burden of a trial”). 

More recently, however, courts have limited the “sham affidavit” rule to situations where an affidavit seeks to flatly contradict earlier deposition testimony.  In Strickland v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., the Eleventh Circuit held that it is only appropriate to disregard an affidavit as a sham when “there [is] no way” that conflicting statements could be read together but that “[w]here a fact-finder is required to weigh a deponent’s credibility, summary judgment is simply improper.”  692 F.3d 1151, 1161-62 (11th Cir. 2012).  Similarly, in Kennett-Murray Corp. v. Bone, the Fifth Circuit explained that “a district court must consider all the evidence before it and cannot disregard a party’s affidavit merely because it conflicts to some degree with an earlier deposition.”  622 F.2d 887, 893-94 (5th Cir. 1980).

In other words, counsel trying to explain her client’s deposition testimony should be careful not to outright contradict that testimony, at the risk of having the affidavit labeled a “sham”, and vulnerable to a motion to strike.  Absent such a flat contradiction, however, many courts are inclined to permit any issues of credibility proceed to the factfinder.

2.      Self-Serving Affidavits

More commonly defense counsel will object to a plaintiff’s affidavit as “self-serving” in an attempt to persuade the trial court to exclude it from consideration on summary judgment.  The appellate courts have soundly rejected this approach with increasing finality.  The Seventh Circuit has been particularly vocal on this issue.  For example, in Widmar v. Sun Chemicals Corp., the Seventh Circuit reprimanded recalcitrant lower courts, stating “[w]e remind district courts of our attempts to rid our circuit’s opinions of language critical of the ‘self-serving’ affidavit.”  772 F.3d 457 (7th Cir. 2014).  The court went on to state:

We hope this discussion lays to rest the misconception that evidence presented in a 'self-serving' affidavit is never sufficient to thwart a summary judgment motion. Provided that the evidence meets the usual requirements for evidence presented on summary judgment  including the requirements that it be based on personal knowledge and that it set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial  a self-serving affidavit is an acceptable method for a non-moving party to present evidence of disputed material facts."
Id. at 460, n.1.  The prior year the Seventh Circuit, in Hill v. Tangherlini, expressly overruled some fifteen of its precedents “to the extent that they suggest a plaintiff may not rely on ‘self-serving’ evidence to create a material factual dispute[.]”  724 F.3d 965, 967 n.1 (7th Cir. 2013).  In recent years, the Seventh Circuit has repeated its rule regarding “sham” affidavits on many occasions.  See Berry v. Chicago Transit Auth., 618 F.3d 688, 691 (7th Cir. 2010), quoted in Navejar v. Iyiola, 718 F.3d 692, 69798 (7th Cir. 2013) (reversing summary judgment based on error discounting partys affidavit as self-serving); accord, Darchak v. City of Chicago Bd. of Educ., 580 F.3d 622, 63132 (7th Cir. 2009); Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678, 681 (7th Cir. 2006). 

Other circuits have reached a similar conclusion to that of the Seventh Circuit.  See Kenney v. Swift Transp., Inc., 347 F.3d 1041, 1046 (8th Cir. 2003) (Holding that “[Plaintiff’s] testimony [at deposition] is sufficient for a jury to find that [Defendant’s] proffered nondiscriminatory reason for not hiring him is pretextual.”); U.S. One Parcel of Real Property, 904 F.2d 487, 492 (9th Cir. 1990) (self-serving declaration can be used to survive summary judgment if it is not conclusory); Lupyan v. Corinthian Colleges Inc., 761 F.3d 314, 32021 (3d Cir. 2014).  In Price v. Time Inc., the Eleventh Circuit succinctly stated that: “Courts routinely and properly deny summary judgment on the basis of a party's sworn testimony even though it is self-serving[.]”  416 F.3d 1327, 45 (11th Cir. 2005).  In Feliciana v. City of Miami Beach, a criminal case, the Court elaborated that:

[Defendant’s] sworn statements are no more conclusory, self-serving, or unsubstantiated by objective evidence than the [police] officers’ assertions…as a general principle, a plaintiff's testimony cannot be discounted on summary judgment unless it is blatantly contradicted by the record, blatantly inconsistent, or incredible as a matter of law, meaning that it relates to facts that could not have possible been observed or events that are contrary to the laws of nature.
707 F.3d 1244, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2013). 

Despite the trend towards recognition that “self-serving” affidavits are perfectly admissible, and indeed capable of defeating a motion for summary judgment evening standing alone, many courts continue, without analysis, to strike such affidavits from the record. Hopefully, armed with the arguments and cases herein, practitioners will have better luck in the future in those courts.

Please be sure to visit our website at


Anonymous said...

Nice Website...
Hey JOIN now and Increase Facebook Likes your profile and websites.
Increase Facebook Likes and check your website worth worth my websites
its may be very beneficial for you also really

Nicole Stevenson said...

Nicole Stevenson Abingdon MD on

Nicole Stevenson said...

Nicole Maria Stevenson & Amelia Dickinson Gutkoska have been f*cking married men ages 30s 40s and 50s in the Washington DC area since January 2014 for their junior and senior years at Univ of Maryland College Park

They graduated from Patterson Mill Jr-Sr High School in Bel Air, MD in 2011; they graduate from Univ of Maryland College Park English dept in 2015 and 2016

They have been getting money gifts clothing tuition etc from these men in exchange for sex on Sugar Daddy-Sugar Baby site and are prostitutes

These are one of every changing profiles on

Nicole Stevenson
"Nicole" / "Lydia"
121 Laurel Valley Ct
(410) 515-7922
Abingdon, MD 21009
22, College Park, MD / Washington, DC
"Looking for a Generous Daddy"
I'm a cute girl looking to have lots of fun. Currently a student looking to go to law school. I love going into the city and trying new restarants and seeing performances. I love dancing, theater, and singing too.
Looking for a generous sugar daddy who will take this little girl out and spoil her with money and gifts. We can have a lot of fun together:) Show me the money and I'll show you the sugar. I'm worth it - you won't be disappointed. No wannabees or cheapskates!! I expect a significant financial arrangement.

Amelia Gutkoska
217 Thomas St, Bel Air, MD 21014
(410) 803-1471
22, College Park, MD
"Young lady looking for a little adventure"
I'm a junior in college who has grown a little tired of the immaturity of college suitors. I'm very fond of reading and writing. I love dancing and trying new restaurants.
Someone interested in good company and going out without serious commitment. Let's just have fun!

dong dong23 said...

louis vuitton handbags
michael kors handbags
tiffany outlet
louis vuitton
burberry outlet
coach outlet
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors outlet
michael kors outlet online
nike free run 2
coach factory outlet
coach outlet store online
nike uk
nike air max
burberry outlet
louis vuitton outlet
replica watches
nike roshe runs
longchamp outlet
adidas originals shoes
coach factory outlet
toms shoes
ed hardy clothing
cheap jerseys
nike air force 1
adidas originals
polo ralph shirts
nike blazers
michael kors outlet
kate spade handbags
oakley sunglasses
michael kors uk
nike air huarache
cheap toms shoes
true religion jeans
nike trainers
adidas trainers
christian louboutin outlet
ralph lauren polo

mmjiaxin said...

longchamp handbags
adidas superstar
cheap nfl jerseys
ugg outlet
ray ban uk,cheap ray ban sunglasses
yeezy boost 350
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors outlet online
air jordan shoes

GIL BERT said...

patriots jerseys
michael kors handbags
houston texans jerseys
michael kors outlet clearance
bills jerseys
carolina jerseys
air jordan 4
jets jersey
michael kors handbags sale
chicago bulls jersey

happy 123 said...

coach outlet store online
ecco outlet
adidas nmd
michael kors handbags
ugg outlet
christian louboutin shoes
ray ban sunglasses
mlb jerseys
ugg boots
armani exchange

Yaro Gabriel said...

ferragamo shoes
coach outlet
ferragamo outlet
polo outlet
bulls jerseys
ferragamo outlet
michael kors
prada handbags
minnetonka outlet
ralph lauren polo shirts

Stjsrty Xtjsrty said...

pandora charms
christian louboutin shoes
ralph lauren outlet
coach outlet online
pandora charms outlet
canada goose outlet
fitflops sale clearance
coach outlet
moncler online
kate spade outlet online

5689 said...

polo ralph lauren
ugg boots
ralph lauren uk
off white jordan 1
true religion jeans
golden goose shoes
red bottom shoes
supreme clothing
coach outlet
supreme new york

Xu千禧 said...

moncler outlet
ugg boots
christian louboutin shoes
nike huarache femme
coach factory outlet
valentino shoes
ed hardy uk
ralph lauren outlet
moncler jackets
kate spade outlet

5200 said...

0822jejeAu cours de air jordan flight flex trainer pas cher l'année civile 1990, les Bulls détenaient le dossier le basket nike air max 90 homme 2017 plus bénéfique qu'ils aient jamais connu. Ce adresse nike france st ouen l aumone sérum contient de nombreux éléments qui aident les air jordan future low homme problèmes de peau humaine et les imperfections air jordan 11 retro low concord femme telles que les protéines, les molécules de chaussure nike free run glyco, les enzymes, les peptides et les air jordan 11 retro low prix oligoéléments. Même les sandales de plage servent à air jordan 11 low price protéger les pieds des objets encastrés dans le sable.

Unknown said...

If a Defendant in a criminal case responds to the charges with a sworn rebuttal affidavit of irrefutable facts, whole the Prosecutions affidavit is nothing but pure presumptions, should it not be responded to? How can the state be the only party allowed to file an affidavit of fact? I'm told they do not have to respond on a point by point basis.

sandy said...

ارخص شركة نقل عفش

ارخص شركة نقل عفش بالرياض

yanmaneee said...

moncler jackets
nike huarache
yeezy boost 350
louboutin shoes
jordan 11
air max 97
polo ralph lauren
kate spade handbags
yeezy shoes
supreme hoodie