of the facts presented in the case report, and the district court was entitled to consider the facts admitted in ruling on the defendants’ summary judgment motion. By continuing to rely on the case report and subsequently failing to offer any evidence to rebut its account of Flores’ complaint, Woods left the district court free to grant summary judgment upon consideration of the facts admitted by Woods alone and without even considering the arrest report or the misdemeanor complaint. Thus, even if the latter documents were inadmissible and therefore not available for the district court’s consideration, the court could still properly have granted summary judgment for the defendants. See In re Sunset Bay Assocs. v. Eureka Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 944 F.2d 1503, 1513-14 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). In his reply brief, Woods tries to avoid
recognizing that a party opposing a claim may choose the forum in the absence of objection holding that once a party had admitted that the opposing partys unauthenticated exhibit contains truthful information the court may consider the material in that exhibit because an admission is of course admissible in evidence holding that even if evidence admitted in error admission must result in material prejudice to warrant reversal holding admission of challenged evidence is harmless error where the record contains other properly admitted evidence that independently establishes guilt holding that there is overlap in the terms use and exhibit in the deadlyweapon statute