Plaintiff pointed out to the district court that Rule 56(c) allows a nonmovant at least 10 days to respond to a motion for summary judgment and that she did not receive 10 days to respond to the supporting materials submitted by the defendant. The district court refused to reconsider its judgment. Rule 56(c) provides in relevant part: “The motion [for summary judgment] shall be served at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing. The adverse party prior to the day of hearing may serve opposing affidavits.” The courts have uniformly held that the purpose of Rule 56(c) is to permit the nonmoving party a reasonable and meaningful opportunity to challenge a motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., Cia. Petrolera Caribe, Inc v. Arco Caribbean, Inc., 754 F.2d 404, 410 (1st Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); Lewis v. Faulkner, 689 F.2d 100 (7th
holding that the party moving for summary judgment waived its argument that the opposing partys affidavit should not be considered because the moving party never objected to the timeliness of the affidavit to the trial court holding that the rules of procedure are structured to provide the nonmovant with substantially more time for filing affidavits than the moving party because the nonmoving party should have an opportunity to examine and reply to the moving partys papers before the court considers them 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 the moving party need not support its motion with affidavits or other evidence if the nonmovant will bear the burden of proof at trial holding the moving party must meet its burden by showing  that is pointing out to the trial court that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving partys case