◆ SpookStack

16° °° MAIORANA V. MACDONALD that she should be excused for her failure to append or serve the inquest transcript. Nevertheless, the mandatory lan- guage of Rule 56(c) and the weight of authority are to the contrary. 6 Pt. 2, Moore’s Federal Practice 1 56.22[1] at ' 1828 (2d ed. 1976), and cases cited at n.53. But see Wash- ington v. Johns-Manville Corp., 259 F. Supp. 440, 458 (E.D. Pa. 1966). We do not see why, even if the transcript was bulky, the relevant portions could not have been properly presented, or the transcript at least proffered in the dis- trict court. Whitaker v. Coleman, 115 F.2d 305, 307 (5th Cir. 1940). ; The plaintiff argues that her counteraffidavits were legally sufficient insofar as they summarized inquest testi- mony which was given by the defendants in-her presence and in which the defendants made statements inconsistent with their affidavits. There is authority suggesting that affidavits containing such information fall within an excep- - tion to the hearsay rule and sufficiently comply with Rule 96(e). Corley v. Life and Casualty Insurance Co. of Ten- nessee, 296 F.2d 449, 150-51 (D.C. Cir: 1961); Douglas v. Beneficial Finance Co. of «lnchorage, 334 IF. Supp. 1166, 1169-70 (D. Alaska 1971). This authority does not aid the plaintiff, however, because the counteraffidavits do not pose any material discrepancies between the inquest testi- mony and the affidavits given by any of the defendants. Finally, the plaintiff urges that affidavits filed by a party opposing summary judgment have been treated with more indulgence than those of the moving party. 6 Pt. 2, Moore’s Federal Practice, supra, at 1333-34, and cases cited at nn. 64 and 65; 10 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2738 at 708-09 (1973), and cases cited at n.61. Applying this approach here would conJict to some extent with the Supreme Court’s admonition that, when government officials are sued; the rules concerning” summary judgment should be given ‘‘firm application.” - l6a -