Stoll

facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand

for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum.

1. We review the district court’s determination that paragraph 18 of Stoll’s

declaration is inadmissible under the sham affidavit rule for abuse of discretion.

Yeager v. Bowlin, 693 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2012). “In order to trigger the

sham affidavit rule, the district court must make a factual determination that the

contradiction is a sham, and the ‘inconsistency between a party’s deposition

testimony and subsequent affidavit must be clear and unambiguous to justify

striking the affidavit.’” Id. at 1080 (quoting Van Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., 577

F.3d 989, 998–99 (9th Cir. 2009)). Because the district court did not identify any

such inconsistency between Stoll’s deposition testimony and subsequent

declaration, it abused its discretion in determining that the declaration was

inadmissible.

2. “To assert a claim for whistleblower retaliation in violation of section

1102.5, ‘the plaintiff [must] establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

retaliation for an employee’s protected activities was a contributing factor in…