301 F.3d 610, 614 (7th Cir.2002). However, under the so-called “sham affidavit” rule, most courts will disregard affidavits which blatantly contradict prior sworn testimony. Beckel v. WalMart Associates, Inc., 301 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir.2002) (noting that “[ajffidavits, though signed under oath by the affiant, are typically written by the affiant’s lawyer, and when offered to contradict the affiant’s deposition are so lacking in credibility as to be entitled to zero weight in summary judgment proceedings unless the affiant gives a plausible explanation for the discrepancy; the explanation, moreover, must come in the affidavit itself, not in the a lawyer’s musings, which are not evidence” (internal citations omitted)); but see Buckner v. Sam’s Club, 75 F.3d 290, 292-93 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). The issue in this case comes down to whether
holding that an affidavit and deposition testimony are not blatantly contradictory where the two statements can possibly be consistent with one another 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 holding that the court could not conclude that the plaintiffs deposition testimony was so contradictory of the statements contained in plaintiffs affidavit as to foreclose the affidavits use for summary judgment purposes holding that plaintiffs affidavit submitted at summary judgment stage and contradicting earlier deposition testimony should not be considered 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