resting on its pleadings”); Jacobrown v. United States, 764 F.Supp.2d 221, 227 (D.D.C.2011) (”[o]n a motion for summary judgment, ... the plaintiff can no longer rest on such mere allegations [from the pleadings], but must set forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Safeway Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 761 F.Supp.2d 874, 885 (N.D.Cal.2011) (where summary judgment motion satisfies movant’s burden, the nonmoving party must produce "specific evidence, through affidavits or admissible discovery material,” to show genuine disputes of material fact) (citation omitted). 10 . In this respect, the new Rule 56 is entirely consistent with judicial constructions of its predecessor. See, e.g., Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (<HOLDING>). 11 . Williams' burden of establishing a prima
holding that in ruling on summary judgment motion the court is required to consider portions of verified pleadings depositions answers to interrogatories and admissions on file which are brought to the courts attention by the parties holding that affidavits that are conclusory and based on hearsay can not be used to oppose motion for summary judgment recognizing that nonmovant can oppose a proper summary judgment motion via affidavits depositions answers to interrogatories and admissions on file but not mere pleadings themselves and indicating that it is from this list that one would normally expect the nonmoving party to make the showing to which we have referred 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 holding that a nonmovant could not oppose a summary judgment motion with an unauthenticated letter