Circuit noted in Perma Research that “[t]he deposition of a witness will usually be more reliable than his affidavit, since the deponent was either cross-examined by opposing counsel, or at least available to opposing counsel for cross-examination.” 410 F.2d at 578; see also Darnell, 16 F.3d, at 176 (“Inherently depositions carry an increased level of reliability. Depositions are adversarial in nature and provide the opportunity for direct and cross-examination.”). Affidavits, on the other hand, are usually drafted by counsel, whose familiarity with summary judgment procedure may render an affidavit less credible. See Russell v. Acme-Evans Co., 51 F.3d 64, 67-68 (7th Cir. 1995). (“We have been highly critical of efforts to patch up a party’s deposition with his own 5 (6th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). However, this Court and other courts of
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 subsequent affidavit contradicting prior sworn testimony does not create genuine issue of fact holding that it is well settled that a plaintiff may not create a factual issue for the purpose of defeating a motion for summary judgment by filing an affidavit contradicting a statement the plaintiff made in a prior deposition 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 plaintiffs affidavit submitted at summary judgment stage and contradicting earlier deposition testimony should not be considered