what adverse inferences should be drawn and what evidentiary weight should they carry. The SEC contends that the following three inferences should be drawn: First, adverse inferences should be drawn against Smith and McGinn concerning the evidence regarding likelihood of success on the merits. Second, adverse inferences should be drawn against David Smith concerning the evidence regarding the David and Lynn Smith Irrevocable Trust, the Stock Account, the Checking Account, and the Vero Beach house; and against Timothy McGinn as to the Niskayuna house. Third, a 001) (explaining that the adverse inference which the jury could permissibly have drawn did not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of proving the elements of its claims); SEC v. Colello, 139 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Blinzler v. Marriott Intern., 81 F.3d 1148,
holding that adverse inference alone insufficient to support a motion for summary judgment holding that selfserving deposition testimony standing alone is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment holding that on appeal a nonmovant need not have answered or responded to the motion for summary judgment to contend that the movants summaiy judgment proof is insufficient as a matter of law to support summary judgment holding that adverse inference rule is permissive holding that a threeyear gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was insufficient to support an inference of causation