U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. at 2553. The type of evidence provided by the party opposing summary judgment need not meet the standards for admissibility at trial. The nonmovant, however, must produce evidence beyond the mere pleadings to survive the summary judgment motion and proceed to trial. Id. The fact that both parties have moved for partial or full summary judgment, based on the alleged absence of genuine issues of material fact, does not relieve the court of its responsibility to determine the appropriateness of summary disposition in the particular case. Prineville Sawmill Co. v. United States, 859 F.2d 905, 911 (Fed.Cir.1988) (citing Mingus Constructors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1391 (Fed.Cir.1987)); Levine v. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ., 646 F.2d 825, 833 (3d Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); Home Ins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 528
holding that it is inappropriate to conclude that because both sides moved for summary judgement that both concede that the case is ready for disposition holding that where a contract results from joint efforts of attorneys for both sides contract should not be construed against either party holding that a court is not empowered to substitute its judgement for that of the agency holding that the defendants sentence for robbery was not inappropriate holding that it is not