defendant acted with the quality of intent that is requisite to an award of punitive damages. For this we must look further beyond the matter of reasonable response to that of motive and intent”). Plaintiffs have cited no evidence warranting the imposition of punitive damages, let alone clear and convincing evidence that Transamerica denied their claim maliciously, oppressively or fraudulently. Plaintiffs, in fact, do not cite any record evidence at all. Because the court need not “scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact,” this alone warrants granting Transamerica’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ pun-tive damages prayer. Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir.1996). See also Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Greenwood v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 28 F.3d
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 holding that the district court need not examine the entire file for evidence establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact where the evidenceis not set forth in the moving papers with adequate references so that it could conveniently be found holding that the moving party for summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial holding that where a state court found that the defendants representation was adequate and did not reach the issue of prejudice the court could examine this element of the strickland claim de novo holding that a district court need not comb the record to find some reason to deny a motion for summary judgment particularly where the evidence is not set forth in the opposing papers with adequate references so that it could conveniently be found