Id. “[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the [record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Where, as here, a party seeks summary judgment on an issue on which it will bear the burden of proof at trial, the moving party must support its motion “with credible evidence.. .that would entitle [it] to a directed verdict if not controverted at trial.” Wasserman v. Bressman (In re Bressman), 327 F.3d 229, 237 (3d Cir.2003) (ellipsis in original) (citation omitted); see also El v. Se. Pa. Trans. Auth., 479 F.3d 232, 237 (3d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). In considering the evidence, the court must
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 to survive a motion for summary judgment a party must make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that partys case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial holding a party moving for summary judgment on an issue on which it bears the burden of proof at trial must show that it has produced enough evidence to support the findings of fact necessary to win recognizing that the burden on summary judgment shifts to the nonmoving party once the moving party has met its initial responsibility of showing the absence of a triable issue of fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case recognizing that even where a party has the burden of proof at trial that party need not produce proof supporting his claim in response to a motion for summary judgment unless the movant has first presented evidence that would negate an element of the nonmovants claim or indicates that the nonmovant will be unable to meet his burden at trial it is never enough simply to state that the nonmoving party cannot meet its burden at trial