Can you contradict your deposition with an affidavit in summary judgment proceedings? Mower v. Simpson Explained

In Mower v. Simpson, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed critical issues regarding the admissibility of affidavits that contradict prior deposition testimony and the requirements for properly disputing facts in summary judgment proceedings.

Background and Facts

Leslie Mower sued real estate agent David Simpson and others for fraud related to property transactions for an equestrian center. Her husband, Ken Dolezsar, acted as her agent in acquiring the necessary parcels. After Dolezsar’s death, Mower alleged that Simpson had engaged in fraudulent conduct during the transactions. When Simpson moved for summary judgment, Mower filed a declaration attempting to dispute Simpson’s statement of facts.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed several issues: (1) whether Mower’s declaration contradicted her deposition testimony, (2) whether Mower properly disputed Simpson’s facts in opposing summary judgment, (3) whether the statute of limitations barred her claims through imputed knowledge from her agent, and (4) whether the district court abused its discretion in denying reconsideration.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court affirmed the district court’s rulings on all issues. Regarding the declaration, the court applied the principle that “when a party takes a clear position in a deposition, that is not modified on cross-examination, [she] may not thereafter raise an issue of fact by [her] own affidavit which contradicts [her] deposition, unless [she] can provide an explanation of the discrepancy.” The court found Mower’s declaration both contradicted her deposition testimony and contained unsubstantiated opinions.

For summary judgment, the court emphasized that Rule 7(c)(3)(B) requires parties opposing summary judgment to provide “citation to relevant materials” for each disputed fact. Mower’s opposition contained “no citation to any deposition, no citation to any affidavit, and no citation to any exhibit,” rendering Simpson’s facts undisputed.

Practice Implications

This case underscores the importance of careful preparation in summary judgment proceedings. Practitioners must ensure that affidavits do not contradict deposition testimony without adequate explanation, and must provide specific citations to admissible evidence when disputing facts. The decision also demonstrates how an agent’s knowledge can be imputed to a principal for statute of limitations purposes, potentially barring claims even when the principal lacks actual knowledge of the relevant facts.