Summary Judgment Reversed Despite Discovery Responses.

Defendant moved for summary judgment after plaintiff responded to special interrogatories and requests for production by stating they did not know whether any facts or documents supported various allegations of their complaint. In opposing summary judgment, plaintiffs explained the initial discovery responses were “a mistake” in a declaration. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment after disregarding substantially all of the statements of fact in the declaration on the ground they were inconsistent with the initial discovery responses. The appellate court reversed, stating:  “This was an overly broad and erroneous application of the D’Amico rule. [D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1, 22-23. [520 P.2d 10, 25-26, 112 Cal.Rptr. 786, 801-802], In light of all the evidence adduced on the motion, a reasonable trier of fact could have credited counsel’s explanation that the discovery responses were a mistake and found the contradictory statements in [plaintiff counsel’s] declaration credible.” (Ahn v. Kumho Tires U.S.A., Inc. (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 2; January 22, 2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 133, [166 Cal.Rptr.3d 852].)