With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to forecast sufficient evidence from which a jury could find a causal connection between any failure to warn and his subsequent development of lung cancer. On appeal, Water-house points to his affidavit, filed after his deposition and in response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In that affidavit, Waterhouse averred that he “did not learn that smoking causes lung cancer until 1965, when Nat King Cole died of lung cancer caused by cigarette smoking,” and that “[i]f [he] had known that cigarette smoking could cause lung cancer, [he] would have never begun smoking.” J.A.209. The district court rejected the claim that this “late-conceived affidavit” was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of causation, see Water-house, 368 F.Supp.2d at 438 (<HOLDING>) (citing Rohrbough v. Wyeth Lab., Inc., 916

A: holding that the affidavit of an expert proffered in opposition to summary judgment motion was assertedly in conflict with the experts prior deposition testimony but the court found that the affidavit could generate genuine issues of material fact because the expert explained the basis for his apparently changed opinion
B: holding that waterhouse cannot generate a genuine issue of material fact by making statements in an affidavit that directly contradict his sworn deposition testimony given in the case
C: holding that physicians affidavit created genuine issue of material fact even though it directly contradicted his prior deposition testimony where physician offered a plausible explanation for the change in his testimony
D: holding that subsequent affidavit contradicting prior sworn testimony does not create genuine issue of fact
B.