that he had not listened to the audio recording of the meeting at all. Nonetheless, since neither party has objected to the Court’s consideration of this transcript in deciding the summary judgment motions, the Court will assume that the authentication deficiency will be able to be cured if this matter were to go trial. The Court is permitted to consider evidence submitted at summary judgment in non-admissible form when the evidence “will be reduced to admissible form at trial.” McMillian v. Johnson, 88 F.3d 1573, 1584 (11th Cir.1996) (allowing otherwise admissible evidence to be submitted in inadmissible form at the summary judgment stage, though at trial it must be submitted in admissible form). See also Gleklen v. Democratic Cong. Campaign Comm., Inc., 199 F.3d 1365 (D.C.Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); DeBiasi v. Charter County of Wayne, 537
holding that evidence in an inadmissible form may be considered at the summary judgment stage as long as the evidence is submitted in an admissible form at trial holding that hearsay evidence may be considered on summary judgment if the same evidence would be admissible in another form at trial holding that at the summary judgment stage there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could find for the plaintiff holding that unverified complaints cannot be considered as evidence at the summary judgment stage holding that any evidence considered by a court at the summary judgment stage must be capable of being converted into admissible evidence id at 1369