she was began [sic] for Defendant as a C-store picker that required her [to] pull different product to be placed into orders for convenience stores to working [sic].” Plaintiffs Resistance Brief at (unnumbered) p. 17. This rather confusing argument is all that is offered in Richards’s brief. Only slightly more is offered in support of Richards’s contentions regarding the “C-store picker” position in her response to Farner-Bocken’s statement of undisputed facts. In its statement of material facts, Farner-Bocken stated, “Richards admits she is unable to do the ‘picker’ job with her current limitations and there are no accommodations that would allow her to do so,” citing Richards’s deposition testimony, as quoted above. Defendant’s Statement Of Mater pp. 1221, 1229-31 (N.D.Iowa 1994) (<HOLDING>); see also Laird v. Stilwill, 969 F.Supp. 1167,
holding that plaintiffs affidavit submitted at summary judgment stage and contradicting earlier deposition testimony should not be considered holding that a portion of an affidavit stating the plaintiff is advised and informed that  could not be considered holding that the affidavit in question did not satisfy the burden of the party moving for summary judgment where affiants eonclusory statement failed to indicate personal knowledge of the circumstances in question and personal knowledge could not be reasonably inferred from the contents of the affidavit holding that a belated affidavit could be considered where the affiants memory was recently refreshed by photographs that he had not beenshown during the deposition holding that a deposition that was not presented to the trial court could not be considered on appeal