Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)

Citation: Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
Parent Document: Johnson v. Rufo, 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 226 (2009)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2009-10-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8357287/johnson-v-rufo/ ↗

Full Text

1,239 chars

Second, paragraphs twenty-six and thirty-one of the affidavit are stricken because they contain con-clusory statements. Neither paragraph explains why the “apartment was in bad condition” or describes how the “air was bad.” Third, paragraphs three, forty-three, forty-four, and sixty-six of Johnson’s affidavit are stricken because they contradict Johnson’s prior deposition statements. See Ng. Bros. Constr., Inc. v. Cranney, 436 Mass. 638, 647-648 (2002) (party cannot defeat summary judgment by submitting an affidavit that contradicts the party’s prior sworn statements and discovery responses); Conlantuoni v. Alfred Calcagni & Sons, Inc., 44 F.3d 1, 4-5 (1st Cir. 1994). Paragraph three of the affidavit is stricken because Johnson’s sworn deposition testimony indicates that he can read and write. Paragraph forty-three is stricken because Johnson admitted in his deposition that he, not Rufo, provided the plywood for the job. Paragraph forty-four is stricken insofar as it alleges that Rufo told Johnson when to start the cove base job and insofar as it alleges that Rufo provided the plywood. Lastly, paragraph sixty-six is stricken because Johnson admitted in his deposition that he had used a power saw before the incident. II.

Other Sections in This Document (34)

Full Text