this case: Cap N’ Cork wants to reduce its delivery costs by using a common carrier; the individual Plaintiffs want to get their wine without driving across the state to pick it up. These incidental burdens have no bearing on interstate commerce and do not give the Court reason to invalidate § 7.1-3-15-3(d) under the Commerce Clause. Even though ATC is moving for judgment as a matter of law, “when challenging a law that treats in-state and out-of-state entities identically, whoever wants to upset the law bears the[ ] burden” of showing that the law is unconstitutional. Baude, 538 F.3d at 613. Having brought the constitutional challenge at bar, Cap N’ Cork’s failure to come forth with admissi ble evidence at the summary judgment stage is fatal. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (<HOLDING>). Cap N’ Cork failed to show that the
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 movant is entitled to summary judgment when party with burden of proof fails to establish genuine fact issue holding that rule 56 mandates the entry of summary judgment after adequate time for discovery and upon motion against a party who fails to 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 that the nonmovant must make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that partys case holding that rule 56c requires summary judgment against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that partys ease and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial