September 1993, (see First Am.Compl. ¶¶ 10, 12), and since Reebok has confined its defense in this action to that secret, it would be inequitable in the extreme to allow plaintiff to play fast and loose with its legal theories and, thereby, threaten or actually derogate the integrity of the judicial process. Additionally, and based on the foregoing, the Court finds that these assertions, which contradict the prior sworn testimony of Liu are sham, as they have been made solely in hopes of creating an issue of fact. See Kennedy v. Allied Mutual Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262, 266-67 (9th Cir.1991) (stating that, upon finding subsequent contradictory affidavit is “sham,” district court may reject affidavit on summary judgment); Radobenko v. Automated Equip. Corp., 520 F.2d 540, 544 (9th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>); McCray v. Casual Corner, Inc., 812 F.Supp.
holding that subsequent affidavit contradicting prior sworn testimony does not create genuine issue of fact holding that a speculative affidavit which contained mere conjecture was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial holding that waterhouse cannot generate a genuine issue of material fact by making statements in an affidavit that directly contradict his sworn deposition testimony given in the case holding that a plaintiff cannot create an issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment through an affidavit that contradicts prior testimony holding that plaintiffs affidavit failed to fall within the exception stated in camfield tires inc v michelin tire corp 719 f2d 1361 8th cir1983 that an affidavit contradicting the prior deposition testimony of the affiant but containing an adequate explanation for the disparity may create a genuine issue of fact because plaintiffs deposition testimony was so contradictory from the statements contained in her affidavit