Buck employees by making it appear that their employment would continue uninterrupted at ACS. Second, it made the acquisition of Buck more appealing to ACS, because ACS knew that it could immediately slash costs by eliminating 100 of the employees it had agreed to employ. The existence of such a scheme — seemingly perfectly orchestrated to ensure that MFC would not have to pay, directly or indirectly, the cost of certain promised benefits — • is surely evidence that a reasonable fact-finder could deem relevant to whether MFC’s conflict of interest affected its decision to deny Howley’s claim. Nonetheless, the district court afforded more weight to this evidence than is appropriate when deciding a motion for summary judgment. See Nolan v. Heald Coll., 551 F.3d 1148, 1155 (9th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). It' is uncontested that Buck’s managers
holding that the nonmoving party must present specific evidence from which a reasonable jury could return a verdict in its favor holding that the nonmoving party must produce more than a scintilla of evidence to survive summary judgment recognizing that nonmoving party must present affirmative evidence  to defeat summary judgment holding that a court considering evidence outside of the administrative record because of its relevance to a conflict of interest must still construe that evidence in favor of the nonmoving party for the purposes of summary judgment holding that when deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings the court must construe the material allegations in the complaint in favor of the nonmoving party as true