X hits on this document





26 / 47

such belt did not require releasing because it was already released.” (emphasis added).6/

AOB 19

This argument fails for at least three reasons. First, as the district court correctly held, Hodson’s deposition testimony simply “does not create the ‘window’ for clarification and expansion that Mr. Clark contends it does.” NR 87:7-8. Hodson’s statement at her deposition that she would have remembered “unbuckling” the lap belt says nothing about what the other two EMTs did or might have done. At most, this testimony supports the limited inference that Hodson did not unbuckle Clark’s lap belt. Clark has failed to show how such an inference, when considered together with Hodson’s other, explicit deposition testimony, creates any ambiguity or confusion. Nor could Clark make such a showing. The inference that Hodson must not have unbuckled Clark’s lap belt does not render ambiguous her unequivocal testimony, repeated at several points in her deposition, that she had no actual memory of Clark’s lap belt (including whether he was wearing it).7/

Second, Hodson’s deposition answer does not “raise[] the inference” that Clark’s lap belt was “already released” at the time Clark’s car came to a stop. AOB 19. As just explained, the only possible inference that could be drawn from Hodson’s deposition answer is that she did not unbuckle Clark’s lap belt following the accident. But Hodson conceded in her deposition that she could not “say what others might or might not have

6/ Clarkalsosuggeststhatthedistrictcourt,inconcludingthatHodson’s affidavit contradicted her depositiontestimony,overlookedthistestimony. AOB18(statingthatthedistrictcourt cited only“part of Ms. Hodson’s deposition” and “did not include the fact that Ms. Hodson testi ied in their deposition that had she removed the lap belt she would have recalled doing so”). Clark is mistaken. The district court repeatedly cited (and indeed quoted in full) this portion of Hodson’s testimony in the portion of its opinion that discussed why Hodson’s affidavit was contrary to her deposition. NR 87:5-6, 7-8.

7/ Although Clark criticizes the district court for relying on “nuances” and “minor discrepanc[ies]” in wording in Hodson’s testimony (AOB 18-19), that argument, if true, would merely demonstrate that the district court was well within its broad discretion in concluding that there was no ambiguity in need of clarification in Hodson’s deposition answer.


Document info
Document views174
Page views174
Page last viewedSat Jan 21 22:31:17 UTC 2017