With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". change Frankel’s clear admission that own admission by relying on the Hyman affidavit to argue that Frankel entered into the settlement agreement with Zurich’s knowledge and tacit approval. See Evans v. Stephens, 407 F.3d 1272, 1278 (11th Cir.2005) (“When the nonmovant has testified to events, we do not (as urged by Plaintiffs counsel) pick and choose bits from other witnesses’ essentially incompatible accounts (in effect, declining to credit some of the nonmovant’s own testimony) and then string together those portions of the record that we deem most helpful to the nonmovant... Our duty to read the record in the nonmovant’s favor stops short of not crediting the nonmovant’s testimony in whole or in part.”); McCormick v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 333 F.3d 1234, 1240 n. 7 (11th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). The same rule likewise applies to admissions.

A: 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
B: 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
C: holding that a court may not consider hearsay contained in an affidavit when ruling on a summary judgment motion
D: holding that plaintiffs affidavit submitted at summary judgment stage and contradicting earlier deposition testimony should not be considered
B.