Antonio 2000, no pet. h.)(op. on reh’g). Appellant did not direct the trial court to any specific evidence to raise an issue of material fact on the element of causation as to the Professional defendants. Likewise, he does not direct this Court to any evidence that would allow us to conclude that he has raised an issue of material fact as to causation. Appellant attached some 500 pages of depositions and other evidence in support of his response to motions for summary judgment. He did not specify which were intended to show the element of causation on the part of the Professional defendants. Neither this Court nor the trial court were obligated to sift through a record of this size to find Appellant’s evidence for him. See Rogers v. Ricane Enterprises, Inc., 772 S.W.2d 76, 81 (Tex.1989)(<HOLDING>). We hold that final summary judgment was
holding that general references to a voluminous record do not direct trial courts and parties to evidence on which the movant relies holding that the court should make factual findings from the record evidence as if it were conducting a trial on the record holding that appellate courts lack jurisdiction on direct appeal to review a trial courts refusal to hold an individual in contempt holding that where both the appellate and trial courts are reviewing the paper record  there is no reason for the appellate courts to defer to the trial courts finding holding that while a district court has discretion to consider other materials in the record it has no obligation to do so where the evidence is not set forth in the opposing papers with adequate references so that it could conveniently be found