708 F. App'x 979
11th Cir.2017Background
- Robert Liebman, a 27-year MetLife employee, sued MetLife under ERISA § 1140 after his termination, alleging he was fired to deprive him of retirement and health benefits.
- At deposition Liebman testified he had no knowledge of company meetings and could point to no facts showing MetLife terminated him to prevent benefits, beyond the fact that termination meant he would not receive them.
- In opposition to summary judgment Liebman submitted a declaration containing paragraphs 30–31 describing a 2012 meeting in which VP Larry Adkins allegedly singled him out and repeatedly expressed jealousy about Liebman’s pension.
- MetLife moved to strike those paragraphs under the sham-affidavit rule as inconsistent with Liebman’s deposition; the district court struck them and granted summary judgment on the ERISA claim for lack of evidence.
- Liebman filed a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend the judgment based on a January 2016 text message from a colleague (Cohen) allegedly offering helpful information; the district court denied the motion because the text existed before judgment and Liebman gave no explanation for the delay in presenting it.
Issues
| Issue | Liebman’s Argument | MetLife’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in striking paragraphs 30–31 of Liebman’s declaration under the sham-affidavit rule | The court applied too strict a standard; only affidavits "blatantly contradicted by the record" may be disregarded | The declaration contradicted clear deposition testimony and created a late factual dispute; district court properly struck it | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; affidavit contradicted unambiguous deposition answers without explanation |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by denying a Rule 59 motion based on a January 2016 text message (newly discovered evidence) | The text message was newly discovered and justified amending the judgment | Evidence was available before entry of judgment (Sept 2016); Rule 59 cannot be used to present evidence available earlier and no explanation for not submitting it was given | Affirmed: denial proper because the text existed prior to judgment and Liebman offered no valid excuse for delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Furcron v. Mail Ctrs. Plus, LLC, 843 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2016) (abuse-of-discretion standard for striking affidavits under sham-affidavit rule)
- Van T. Junkins & Assocs. v. U.S. Indus., Inc., 736 F.2d 656 (11th Cir. 1984) (party cannot create factual issue with affidavit that contradicts prior unambiguous deposition testimony without explanation)
- Rollins v. TechSouth, Inc., 833 F.2d 1525 (11th Cir. 1987) (inconsistency required between affidavit and deposition to apply sham-affidavit rule)
- Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757 (11th Cir. 2005) (Rule 59 cannot be used to present evidence available before entry of judgment)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (describing standard for disregarding testimony blatantly contradicted by the record)