Scribd Logo
Fazer o upload

Bem-vindo(a) ao Scribd!

  • Tippens V Celotex - Deposition Inconsistencies

    Enviado por

    TenThousandDepositions.com
    31 visualizações8 páginas
    This case stands, in part, for the proposition that some inconsistencies that arise from the deposition to not necessarily render the testimony a sham that justifies dismissal of the case.

    Título original

    Tippens v Celotex - Deposition Inconsistencies

    Direitos autorais

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formatos disponíveis

    PDF ou leia online no Scribd

    Você considera este documento útil?

    Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

    Denunciar este documento
    This case stands, in part, for the proposition that some inconsistencies that arise from the deposition to not necessarily render the testimony a sham that justifies dismissal of the case.

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    31 visualizações8 páginas

    Tippens V Celotex - Deposition Inconsistencies

    Enviado por

    TenThousandDepositions.com
    This case stands, in part, for the proposition that some inconsistencies that arise from the deposition to not necessarily render the testimony a sham that justifies dismissal of the case.

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    de 8
    As of July 3.2015 948 AM EDT United Sues Cou of Appeals fr the Bleventh Cut December 9, 1986 No st12 Raper BIS F249; 1905 US. Ap. LEXIS S48; Fo RS. (Caan) 64 ‘Wiliam LTIPPENS, deceased Nll Pippen, Indvidly anda widow of Wiliam I. Tppen,Psin-Apelio The CELOTEX CORPORATION, et aly Defendsn-Appelies Subsequent History [1] Peiton for Rehearing Deed ‘pi 20, 1987 Renewing denied by Tenens. Celaer Com, 1097 US. an-LEMIS 1825 1h iG Av. 20. 1980) ior History: Appes! trom the United Stats Disc Cor fo the Sothern isc of Geo Disposdon: REVERSED AND REMANDED. Core Terms postion, asbestos, shew, summary judgment, pie cesiiy,ganing summary judgment, dite court, Inston covering, gene, ashes corning produce, umnry judgment ition, less prosimiy, desde, proves, ste of material fc, sped nsunces, ster of Tim, sdisbn, dsrepuaces, comadics, fnberey, nes, eerie Case Summary Procedural Posture Appl widow ef worker soup review ofthe grat of ‘sumnary judgment by the United States Distr Cou for ‘he Soutien Dist of Georgia, im fiver of appelee ‘esos manufacturer in hr eluim for personal injenes 0 her hosand. Appelt contended tat the aide of 3 coworker wis ot x0 ions with his deposition he {he aide waa sham. Oresiew ‘Applian widow of worker sought review of the grant of Summzy judgment to appellee arbesoe manuftces, Appellant contended thatthe inconsnenie between s es affidavit and his depesion were et sigticat ocugh 1 reader his ada a sham. The cout revered and eld that he inconsistencies di ot she lve of. sreting a sm of the afi a they were nov a enracions of is previous samen. The cout Farber eld a an afi may oy ave been dear k= Sham i pany ad given cea answers to enambgaous (quests which negtd the existence of ay game ae of materi it nd that party tmp tera werent ‘chan ise with an affidavit har nerely coxradie, ‘tout explnton peviously given clea testiony. The cour ek fuer hat somary odgent coud eny Have beer granted when te evidence produced by apelin as ‘terewmoving party, owed noe Hight mos farsa pela aed oesublishgeuin se of mail fac outcome ‘The coun roteed snd remunded and held that she Inconsisenies between the deposition and affdbit of spelsns wines didnot ener the aida sha a Ss notice to grant sommary jdgment a gemloe ‘ue of mater fs exe LexisNexis® Headnotes Chit rte > bpm > Samar Jon > Gene Omnien hat Procelce > > Summary Jaden > Main or ‘Sime Soen > Gen Overs {hit Posed > > Sur flpmet > Eaitenent a Mate Law > Gam Overview Chl ese > — > Summa igment > Sepprin Chat Procee > > Summary Judenen > Sepponing Mat» Ati ames Pack Garry Page 206 8 {805 F.2d 948, #949; 1986 U.S, Ap, LEXIS 34583, #41 Cit ocatie > — > Sumy Jaden > Soporte aris > Dorey Marie HIND The Federal Rules of Civil Procedute provide for ‘unary judgment when he leading, depoton answers to merogsores, and admission on i together ith the atid fan. show hat tere is po genie iste a 0 ‘any ei tan hat the moving pat end 03 jindpment as a mater of lw. Eel Che B Stl. The ‘ivict cou bul onside al evidence nthe cod when ‘viewing mevin for romary jdgment~ pleadings, epost, lntrogators, affisis, ete = and cn oy brant summary jedgment if everthing in the record mons tht no genie ist of mei tex, ‘ht Prose» Rapes > Sunny eg > Geer veriew Cit cedar > > Suman pen > Ene! aero Law > Coal ere > Sunmary Jaynes > Enon! ie» Apert ‘it Posed > > Sonar Spent > Ensen! 2 Mar of Law > Goi ign {HN2 If ene oF more ofthe essential lon In dots, ‘en summary jogo mat ma Ue gram Summon jdement is sacha lethal weapon depiving «gant of & Talo the re, aston mos ewe 0 ese ony tose eases devoid of any need for Tacwal deteminatons a Aispsed of by summary judgment. Summary jadprent Should be pane aly wea te evidence prodiced By the oaovng pe, when vewed a3 ight mo forse 0 ‘ha pany falls 0 etblsh a penuine Ise. Ct Posed > > Sonar Seen > Enon! Maser of Law > Canal Ove LANE Wits eogard to summary jgmen, 2 dst cout mus ot resolve factual ies by weighing eonticing evidence ice isthe province of he ry to meses he Probate value of the evidence. The esc court mt nt sess he probe vale of any evidence preset to forthe wool be at unvarsned extension of he sary denen devi CC Procedure > ws > Sumy Sages > Saponting Maer» Goel Greniew > Summary Jen > Sopp ‘x4 Acoun ay disregard a fda 2 mater of aw when determines thatthe aide sasha. I pty ho has been exained at length on deposition end ase sm isue of fet simply by submiting an aidst contig his wn rie temo, tis woul pel > Senay Judgment > Sipping Manet > Genet Ore FINS A definite distinction must be made between “Sscrepanies which rele apparent shams “and “Eecepncies which cree anise of crdliy 0 © the wight ofthe evidence. An epposingpary’s afi ‘shall be consdeed altiouph i difes trom or varies (om) Wis evidence ot given by postion oF moter av andthe on connection may discos an se of ‘cei. ‘ii Poste > > Sumy Sagan > Eanes Mater of Lam > Gonone pcs Cit Moses > > Samy Judgment > Sepang Chl Presi > o> Samay Jigen > Spying Ct Process > — > Summary Jadot > Supine [MN Th porpose of summary gent so separ el ewin ies rom those whch te formal oc rtd, To low every fire of memery ovarian In 2 winess's testimony 1 be disregarded a sham woul requ fr 00 ‘uch from iy witeses ad woul pie thee of at of the tadioal apport to determine whic pin ia es wih whieh wed he wes a tng te th. Vernon: in = witness testimony apd ay fie of rmenay thoughout he couse of dcevery ere a se ‘feet 2 0 whch pat ofthe tesinany shad be ‘psu the rest weight ievedted atl sme coneming the ered of wien and weight of the evince re fpestons of fot hich eguieresotion bythe er of fas. Am afidavic may nly be dseganded a2 sam when 1 pay has given ltr aswers to mariocequetons ‘whch net te exseace of ny genuine se atria facta ht ary sterpehereater cet such an see tan adv tt merely conde, waboa expansion, revouly given cles estinony. James Patick Gary Page 30f8 {805 F294, 949; 1986 US. App. LEXIS 24583, 201 Ct Pree > — > Summary adumen > Soponig Mare» Genet Gremio Gv Proce > — > Summary Jatpmen > Sapa ners > Aas (ot rcs > Tk > Jy Ts» Prove of Coun & {INT very esopaey contied in an adit does nt jusiy sie coun efsal to give credence 10 sch viene I ip othe ays le in ening qsstons of relia dstit cour shoul ot eet the coe of 2a dai even 8 at odds wit saterens made in 3 cy poston Counsel: Me Roger 8. Lane, C. Daryl Goss, fr ‘Aplin ‘Me Chas B. Mikel, Daven ¥. Ros, Ms. May, Man, for Appel odes Hil, Vance, Chit Iudges, and Brown, * Senor {ici Sade. Hu, Creat gs, peily conor Opinion by: BROWN Opinion (0951) JOHN R. BROWN, Senor Crit ude: ‘Cea Corporation's Moon for Summary Judges wis ane in theca when a non-pryafins deposition ‘sioner wit is peer fda. The Disk Cat Bald the inconsienies created «sham afivie and considered only the deposition wstinony in grnting ‘ummary judges. We do ot fn the onal ago nee ocosiset wih he deposition an ol Bt any ‘question of rebily or weigh tobe piven othe evidence ‘eng fom vances between an affidavit and positon {sa qonston of fat for ther of a, be te age or ry. Weheeore, [42] revese the Dist Cou grant ‘of saminary deme and rerun fo ter pocetings ‘oconsierallof th evidence nln bath he epson snd the afd Me, Nel Tipe bough sit pint Celoex Croton (Celoes)inividsly spd om behalf of her desensed asband. Wiliam Tipene worked at Branewick Shipyard is pipette oo sips ofthe United Stes Navy and the “Merchant Maries tng eters After serving ine Army, and hoking severe ter jes, Me. Tippent weed or Iweny.seven years ar soperisr foe FT Rayos in Sesup, Georg. Mrs Tippeos alge that We Ber hasta was employed 2x supervisor a FTF Raonir and a 2 Fipefiter a Brnswick Shipyards, be was expod to "esos contning products tha were mined, manta, and sod by Celts." (081 In responte 10 Ceksen’s motion fer sina men, Tppens submited the aida of 3 coworker, Frank Myre, which sted hat Melaye wed Sever produ incadng thse ofthe defendant Claes, wile working in cose roximity to Wikan Lawrence Tppns* ‘The Distt Cour intly deed Celeex's motion baad on Melee’ ida (04) Coles along wit he oer defends, eps Frank Mens: Daring bis deposition, Melnyee ws unable ft a seem onan ot R.Br, Snr U.S, Got Fd he ih Ce, Siig By Bean, ‘Toye ily ought sl asst ny ane ena ining Cole. The the gi! enna og a am af anny judg esa ese th only rman een te Das Cons ft of monary jen a agent fe paps fae The Metre tid its: “is vi sen von my eal knowlege an forse inthe hepa i hopin o deeds aos fr Sonar Judge Fro 1958 My, 1953. was employed! Rayon ne, Jp, Gag pita, a Wie lye at Rayore nein ap, Got {wor wih ltd Wit Lamon Ten. James Patek Canty Page dof 8 {526 99, #951; 1986 US. App, LEXIS 34589, 4 ‘pinpoint ny specif instances where he wore in close asbestos. However, Mle was able fo st tha he did roximity to Wiliam Tipens white using he defendants ate Caloer’s pod. The apparent inconsnency between produc. Metnyre was nso unable wo inity any specific the aft ad (958) depostion was merely an inblty fasaees wen be used Celten’s ashes conning 1 el pei ines, pies, and stations.” Prods oft enify which Coots products contained Wotan Lavece Ties jo t Rayon ws Supner of te ain ew sd ach Ne Wak i oe oii me daring te hy fn was ped Raye s ie wkng in cle posit Will Laveen Tgpent | ed te owing ea coming prods hich roc at realy Wil Lerten and myele Armstrong ors aaig: ip Cay des cemenl and Carey sds ge sven Pip Cay he restr cong Cater Coron © Rayos Minatan bos el snd Ryteor Minn sens mati, 6) Fry-ig alton 17 Tey thes Ian Cot © Pica sense on ‘ Ovene-Caisg Kale est penton ad 1 Namen crabs conznng poses, 2 cays pein mete tthe i tea hse hi ir Tt he dhe pra mance by tae ane yet Th loi sin exer vn abi ele es wep (Ym ud you a sme Pip Cay pie coving = (© = while you erecta. Do you fener eit ine yo wd Pip Cay ong? (No. et Tot, We di et ade a er Tos, (Sod you remeber th ine at cme in? ©: Ws ka pretomer pps eves? ove Ah 0: Do you emer ay pra ane tw i James Patick Gary Page Sof 8 05 F.2d 949, #952 1986 US, App, LEXIS 34588, = (095) Based en the ncoosseniesn Melnt's pesto, Celoter moved for reconsideration of their maton For summary Jodgnet. The Date: Cour reconsidered and aed 12 maton. 1s Boon Sad Before * FNL The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide fee ‘imnary jdgmeet when “ihe pleadings, depocitons, swe to emopaies, snd admissions on fl ogi ‘withthe afi. any show that there i no genie Issue ast sy materia fet and that te moving py = mile 6) toa dpe sa mater of om" ERIE, ‘Sé{c The Dist Cou sal consider ll erence inthe ‘cord when viewing + mation for summary udemet eins depositions, interogaes, aida and an only gran summary judgment “if everthing in the reco. -demomtrater at po genie ine of mati fat exists” Keser Coliseum Peres. In 1 £2 06 £10 3 Ci0 emp noviia, “Suny Judgment is eal weapon nd cous most be mind of ie sime and targets and beware of over nis se” ‘ici, “Te pein fneon of he moto forsunry Jdgmeat ist show iba one or more ofthe esr ‘ements fa chim or defense... is nti oad ht, 52 result jlgmont an be rendered ae» mater of a” ‘Lous, Federal Summary Judgment Deere: A Creal Anat, £8 Yale LI. 18, 147198), seta ee © Ason miter opto at ip Cy be cng os ye St ot Ya Lp. Yo (Yo dt ter iu poe hdr oat (Cos coe begin st he a) oro erie oven (Youre send of ay eg? sme to te eu tt pie ts Pecorino ly y Wet et yon ype os whan ar nyo tao Tipe A: Heol poi epson of Fk Metre #15, 245 al Spot Ber Appl 4 “ape Cle se onlin cpt jam bt sho on cen i OR Heo amy Se en ATS, 07, es Cele Cons DED SDSS ee Gola Cnn E26 89 he Ss Coa Go 764 FOU MRS AID Cs TUS) Bh Clas Ca, TEDL sth C988, ‘ie Beven Cie, anen se dis, omar Gf chan. 8 205,20 9 pt on cin fh mer th itr ph Os 1981. ames Patek Gay Page 6088 {805 F294, 952; 1986 US. App, LEXIS 34583, 667 ben ave Trove of mor ofthe eset eles in dott, then sara jadpeat must at be praned.Sommay leet such etal weapon, dpeiving tian ofa onthe ‘ssc, caution mus 93] be tied to ensue aly those ies devoid of any need for foe determiins re dsposed of by summary jogmen. Summary Judge steal be granted ony when the evidence produced by he ‘onmoving party when viwedin aight most aor 0 that pany fs esis pensineie, Colot Co 265.272.0980 ddchecs Kees A Co, 38 US. [46 197, SSC 1508 tone 26 212154 09701 “This cour deride an amos encase ant the sre defendant eae his yea. I Lane" Cele Cor, 282 E2L1S26, 1928 th Ga JOR, we stats HN Tear coar ms nt resolve fc pes by weighing conficing, evidene, see Muriar UNG, 69524 1296, 1298. Ci RD since is he groine of he ary 1 ass he probative valor (oR of the evidence, ee sun: Cele Carp 24 Lake BCL i), Te det cu me noc" sei) the probative wake of any evidence Presented 1 for thie would be an” warned ‘exeaion of the utr judgment device” Gack ‘The Sham Aides Concept “The Secend Cie smnounced the proposition tht ENG ‘our may dear an fiat a9 mater of lw whe ‘erermines tate afi a sham in Pen Reseach ‘aul Dasleoment Coe Singet Con 410-E20-572 ad Cicideb As recounted by his cou ia Lane, the Socond CGeuit’s deen in Peron Research involved pitt ‘he coined ted bur disclosed mo peice of he fd ‘him ding extensive depostion, Helier filed an fide Which disclosed the specifies and thar wax blstarty incase wither ffi,“ pty who hab bee examinod et engi on deposition could raze an ie of fact simply by submiing a afi contacting it toa pir estmony ths woul! grey dh the aliy ‘of smnary judgment as precede for (9) screening oa sham sus Ftc” Bra Reseack l S78 The Second ‘Creuitdtemined ht any ise ed by avis wc ea May contadited by an euler depaiion was 40 ‘spect of unratflness sto be disepaded as awa of law ‘The Eleventh Circuit aceped the proposition tha an slfgvie canbe dstegrded when cones 3 sham a (541d, Ci.(48, In at case the Preside of Van T nina cyl lathe places inthe Seposion”™ ‘ha thre mas mo onion tached tothe green hat he eas euied ops ne of ther ings ler ‘oe svarded a dealership. fi .657 He ater sted on scvt ting tothe wool be awarded te esersip ‘ony ithe woul purchase oe of hi bung. This cour el tha th fai shuld be dsegarded shar, is ‘at condition te earlier deposition as aeapaned therefore wos inadequate to rise a gues ne oft ‘which was denied 1 exis by the eae deposition, Discrepancies: Credit or Shan INS A seit dsincion mus be (40) made beween ‘Sserepecin eich crete taipurent shams and ‘Serepatces which crete a sue of eeiiiy or go the weight ofthe evidence. "Ax opposing pry lft Soul be considered alhough i afer fom or varie (fom) Bis evidence a given by deposon or anther affidavit andthe Wo In coneacon may cose a nme of trey” 6 Moore's Fedral Paci pr. $6.15 (4) (24 541985 footnote ome) HN The porpose of summary jdlgment so separate re enn ses rom those which ae fora opted, To Slow every file oF memory or vrnon ina wis testimony bedstead «sham woud requ fr 00 ‘uch rm iy testes nd woul deprive thet of fact ff the tonal apron trie which pin a [0954 ne ana with which words he ies (nth ce, Ibe ant) was ting the th, Vain in 4 wines ‘estiory and any falar of memory teoahout the corse ‘of discovery ret iu fee a to hich at of ‘he texmny abou be gv the greet weigh ceded aval. sues concming the ered of wineies and weigh of he evidence ste questions [I] of ft which Fee reslon bythe wie fact An fait my only te dogaded as a shan “when a pty given cleat ‘answers to unambiguous questions which sepa the evisece of any geouine sue of steal facta ony serps) thereat (o) cen such an Sue ith an Mfidait that merely contadis, witb exlanton, ‘previously given clear testimony.” Wu Tanna 65 17 ery discrepancy contained nan aft des ot asi 8 dt coun’s refs ive rience 0 Seven. See Choire Jenkins S50 £24 18S. 1080 (is Cr) Grama jodgmet was improper even James Paik Gary Page Toft 05 £24 99, *954 1986 US. App. LEXIS 34583, 1 though pary's testinony was “hot 3 parigm of openey oF prsusiveness” since ivan nt 8 rampureat stun) er dened ab no, SL UTD. In light of te jry's ele in ring ‘veson ofr. dist cour shold nt eet the comer of an adit even fates with stemens mag aan ely deposition, Keaet:Macy Como. Bene 622 124.887. 884 15h ‘ceizan.* {12} Applying hese pipes the isa ese, we Find hat the affiaeit i no inherently inconsistent the

    Você também pode gostar