With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Facts In Support Of Motion For Summary Judgment, ¶ 36. In response, Richards states the following: Richards clarifies [Defendant’s Statement Of Material Facts] paragraph 36. She does acknowledge that she testified in her deposition that she could not perform the picker position with her current limitations. However, her affidavit (P’s Appx. 6-7 Richards’ [sic] affidavit) and vocational rehabilitation expert’s, Kent Jayne’s, report (P’s Appx. 30-31 Kent Jayne’s vocational report) clearly evidence that Richards could perform the “picker position” and/or the “hand stamping position” with or without accommodations. Plaintiffs Response To Defendant’s Statement Of Material Fact And Plaintiffs Statement Of Additional Material Facts That Preclude Summary Judgment, ¶ 35. The (N.D.Iowa 1995) (<HOLDING>); Rowson v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd., 866

A: holding that when the grounds stated in the motion for a new trial are evident in the record a hearing is warranted even though the motion is not supported by affidavits or other extrinsic evidence
B: holding that where affidavits raise a genuine issue of material fact as to a brady claim an evidentiary hearing should be conducted
C: holding that affidavits of two former coworkers would be considered and allowed to create a genuine or substantial factual issue even though the plaintiff stated in his deposition that he was unaware of the coworkers knowledge where the coworkers affidavits specifically referred to a statement made in their presence and which the defendants had not challenged in any manner
D: holding that a court may review any evidence such as affidavits and testimony to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction
C.