identifying itself as Ford Motor Credit Company.” (Mem. in Support of Reconsid. at 5). However, their citation to the deposition of Ann Bauer does not effectively support that assertion: Q When did Ford Credit stop contacting you or anyone else regarding you or Nadine Jackson? A: I don’t know for sure. I think it was after the repossession.... (Nuss Aff., Exh. A at 42). The court has considered whether this creates a material fact dispute which precludes summary judgment, however the court notes that in Bauer’s initial affidavit, in which she catalogued defendants’ various collection efforts, she never once mentioned receiving phone calls throughout the summer of 1998. (Doc. No. 11, Bauer Aff.). See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the court concludes that even when
holding that the nonmoving party may not rest upon mere denials or allegations in the pleadings but must set forth specific facts sufficient to raise a genuine issue for trial holding that when the moving party submits a properly supported summary judgment motion the nonmoving party must produce affirmative evidence to demonstrate genuine issue of fact and may not rely simply on denials or allegations in pleadings holding that the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings to show that there is a genuine issue for trial holding that an adverse party must state specific facts showing there is a genuine issue of fact for trial holding due to the moving partys failure to meet its initial burden the onus never passed to the nonmoving party to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial  citation omitted