With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". affidavits that contradict their prior depositions .... If such contradictions were permitted ... ‘the very purpose of the summary judgment motion — to weed out unfounded claims, specious denials, and sham defenses — would be severely undercut.’ ” Bank of Ill. v. Allied Signal Safety Restraint Sys., 75 F.3d 1162, 1171 (7th Cir. 1996) (quoting Babrocky v. Jewel Food Co., 773 F.2d 857, 861 (7th Cir. 1985)). This rule applies not only to affidavits that contradict deposition testimony but also to those that contradict other discovery responses such as interrogatory answers. See S.E.C. v. Cook, No. 1:13-CV-01312-SEB, 2015 WL 5022152, at *22 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 24, 2015); cf. Viasystems Techs. Corp., LLC v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., No. 10-C-577, 2011 WL 2912763, at *3-4 (E.D. Wis. July 15, 2011) (<HOLDING>). Doris has submitted just the sort of

A: recognizing that affidavit cannot create issue of material fact if it conflicts with affiants interrogatory responses but finding no conflict in that particular case
B: holding that a speculative affidavit which contained mere conjecture was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial
C: recognizing conflict
D: holding that mere allegations do not create a material issue of fact if the nonmovant cannot point to an evidentiary conflict created on the record at least by a counter statement of a fact or facts set forth in detail in an affidavit by a knowledgeable affiant
A.