In this case, defendant avoided summary judgment by submitting a declaration from a non-party witness which said she knew facts undermining the defendant’s going and coming rule defense. After summary judgment was denied on that basis, defendant took the witness’ deposition at which she disclaimed any personal knowledge of the facts stated in her declaration which she said she signed just to get plaintiff’s counsel to stop bothering her at work. The decision holds that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s renewed summary judgment motion. In deciding whether a foundation of personal knowledge for the declaration had been shown, the trial court should have considered the witness’ deposition testimony which disclaimed any such knowledge. Because this evidence showed that the witness lacked personal knowledge, the declaration should have been excluded, leading to summary judgment for defendant. Though the result is the same, the decision distinguishes D’Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974) 11 Cal.3d 1 on the grounds that D’Amico applies only to party admissions, not non-party witness’ admissions and that here the deposition followed rather than preceded the declaration.