In Scalf v. D .B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, the court explained that "for summary judgment purposes, deposition answers are simply evidence. Subject to the self-impeachment limitations of D'Amico v. Board of Medical Examiners (1974), they are considered and weighed in conjunction with other evidence. They do not constitute incontrovertible judicial admissions as do, for example, concessions in a pleading , or answers to requests for admissions, which are specially designed to pare down disputed issues in a lawsuit." (Scalf, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 1522.) The Scalf court further explained that "the cases are clear that summary judgment should not be granted on the basis of 'tacit admissions or fragmentary and equivocal concessions.' " (Scalf, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 1523.) The court reasoned that "while the D'Amico rule permits a trial court to disregard declarations by a party which contradict his or her own discovery responses (absent a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy), it does not countenance ignoring other credible evidence that contradicts or explains that party's answers or otherwise demonstrates there are genuine issues of factual dispute." (Scalf, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1524-1525.)