made. 1 McCormick ON Evidence supra; see also State v. Settle, 132 N.H. 626, 635, 570 A.2d 895, 900 (1990). Nothing in the record in this case, for example, indicates that Shedd previously testified to specific instances of cocaine use, as opposed to use of “a lot of drugs.” More similar to an examination of a witness at trial than either a grand jury appearance or a pretrial exchange of affidavits, a deposition subjects a witness to timely, effective cross-examination under oath and generates a potentially admissible transcript that is available to all parties. Cases finding that a waiver of the privilege extends beyond the stage of the case in which a witness was responsive either involve inapposite facts, see, e.g., United States v. Parcels of Land, 903 F.2d 36, 43 (1st Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>), or do not recognize that later assertions can
holding that district court had ample authority to strike claimants affidavit offered in opposition to governments motion for summary judgment in forfeiture action after claimant invoked fifth amendment and refused to answer governments deposition questions holding that facts alleged in an employees affidavit were insufficient to raise an issue of fact for the purposes of defeating a summary judgment where the affidavit contradicted the employees earlier deposition statements holding that interested partys affidavit opposed to motion for summary judgment and governments deposition to explore facts asserted in affidavit do not constitute distinct proceedings holding that the court may disregard an affidavit submitted solely for the purpose of opposing a motion for summary judgment when that affidavit is directly contradicted by deposition testimony and the nonmovant does not explain the discrepancies holding that a deposition is the time for the plaintiff to make a record capable of surviving summary judgment  not a later filed affidavit