the roof rail,” Lafferty replied, “The lap belt would hold him down.” NR 61:Tab 1 at
When pressed, he offered the following testimony:
And what testing or data base do you rely upon in offering that opinion?
Is that it?
Ibid. (emphasis added). When Lafferty was subsequently asked if he had conducted “any testing to document how far a person Mr. Clark’s size would move off of the seat in this accident if the lap belt remained latched,” he replied, “I’ve done no testing, no, sir.” Id. at 138.
In response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Clark submitted a one and one-half page affidavit of Lafferty’s that purported to “clarify” and “re-state” Lafferty’s professional opinion. NR 54:Exh. 1 at 1. In addition to reiterating his conclusory assertion that Clark’s lap belt “was not functioning during the accident and that it failed to restrain him,” Lafferty asserted in his affidavit that “the relative lack of blood on the lap belt in comparison to the blood on the shoulder harness and the seat is inconsistent with the lap belt being buckled during and after the accident.” Id. at 2. Compare NR 54:Exh. 3 (Lafferty stated in his deposition that “[t]here was no blood on that lap belt”) (emphasis added). Defendants moved to strike Lafferty’s affidavit as well as his other testimony concerning the purported unbuckling of the lap belt. NR 62.
Also in response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Clark submitted a supplemental affidavit of Ms. Hodson. NR 54:Exh. 2. In contrast to her sworn deposition testimony that she could “only * * * positively recall” that Clark’s shoulder belt was in place (NR 47:Tab 8 at 11), could not “personally recall unlatching [Clark’s] lap belt” (id. at 29), and indeed “d[id]’t recall anything” about the lap belt (id. at 11-12), Hodson stated in her affidavit: “I did not cut or otherwise release the lap belt from Mr. Clark.” NR 54:Exh. 2 at 1. She also stated that it was her “belief based on my memory