Facts In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment, ¶ 36. In response, Richards states the following: Richards clarifies [Defendant’s Statement Of Material Facts] paragraph 36. She does acknowledge that she testified in her deposition that she could not perform the picker position with her current limitations. However, her affidavit (P’s Appx. 6-7 Richards’ [sic] affidavit) and vocational rehabilitation expert’s, Kent Jayne’s, report (P’s Appx. 30-31 Kent Jayne’s vocational report) clearly evidence that Richards could perform the “picker position” and/or the “hand stamping position” with or without accommodations. Plaintiffs Response To Defendant’s Statement Of Material Fact And Plaintiffs Statement Of Additional Material Facts That Preclude Summary Judgment, ¶ 35. The (N.D.Iowa 1995) (<HOLDING>); Rowson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd., 866
holding that where affidavits raise a genuine issue of material fact as to a brady claim an evidentiary hearing should be conducted holding that a court may review any evidence such as affidavits and testimony to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction holding that when the grounds stated in the motion for a new trial are evident in the record a hearing is warranted even though the motion is not supported by affidavits or other extrinsic evidence holding affidavits must include competent evidence and affidavits are not competent if they fail to show a basis for actual person knowledge or if they state conclusions without the support of evidentiary facts holding that affidavits of two former coworkers would be considered and allowed to create a genuine or substantial factual issue even though the plaintiff stated in his deposition that he was unaware of the coworkers knowledge where the coworkers affidavits specifically referred to a statement made in their presence and which the defendants had not challenged in any manner