Looks like Stupendous Man made another post on naked capitalism after you posted here that seems a follow up, or addition, to the rule citations. Such appears below in quotation marks.
"Now a Reply to a Reply to a Reply, LOL
Federal Rule 6(c)(2) has this to say about attaching affidavits to a motion:
(2) Supporting Affidavit.
Any affidavit supporting a motion must be served with the motion. Except as Rule 59(c) provides otherwise, any opposing affidavit must be served at least 7 days before the hearing, unless the court permits service at another time."
Reading Rule 56(e)(1) and rule 6(c)(2) together yields the following:
Affidavits in support of a motion (including a motion for summary) must be submitted with the motion. The individual executing the affidavit must have personal knowledge of the matter. A certified or sworn copy of any documents or records referred to in the affidavit must be attached.
Has anyone here ever seen a case in which these rules were voluntarily complied with fully by plaintiff? Has anyone here heard of a case in which, upon proper objection, the court ruled in accordance with the rules?
In re the deposition of Jeffrey Stephen, I am glad this is hitting in the way it seems to be. Still, I am very curious why none of the other robo-signer depositions, e.g., Beth Cotrell, Ceryll Sammons, Erica Johnson Seck, Angela Nolan, have had similar impact? Perhaps that is yet to come.