“Summary Judgment and Sham Affidavits: Protecting Your Motion from Contradictory Testimony”
Swift Currie coverage and commercial litigation attorney, Cat Gavrilidis, authored an article for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation discussing the practical and tactical benefits of summary judgment motions, addressing jurisdictional differences in how courts manage a party’s self-contradictory statements and advising how to avoid an inconsistent testimony.
While a motion for a summary judgement is known to reduce case expenses and avoid the substantial costs of trial, preparing and filing one is not inexpensive. She noted that this motion is best applied to cases with strong arguments to justify the expense.
“Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law,” Gavrilidis said.
She highlighted that the “sham affidavit” rule, precludes a party from submitting an affidavit to create a sham issue. The rule is applied in federal courts in rare situations where a party has provided straightforward answers to clear deposition questions that rule out any genuine factual dispute. Through different variations, it has been adopted in some state supreme courts, such as, Texas, Nevada, Georgia and Tennessee.
Gavrilidis provided guidance on how parties can prepare summary judgement with the sham affidavit rule in mind.
To view the full article, you may click here.
