not explain why “installation and assembly manuals,” “power and control diagrams,” and “drawings and part lists” for the installation of a megapixel camera that incorporates third party technology “derive economic value” from an element of secrecy that is known only to EarthCam and its employees. EarthCam simply relies on Mr. Sharp’s affidavit to conclude that the information contained in OxBlue 3019 “was not publicly available and gave EarthCam a competitive advantage.” In his affidavit, Mr. Sharp does not specify why the information on OxBlue 3019 was “not publicly available and gave EarthCam a competitive advantage.” Mr. Sharp’s belief and eonclusory allegations are insufficient to survive summary judgment. See Ojeda v. Louisville Ladder, Inc., 410 Fed.Appx. 213, 214 (11th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). EarthCam also does not explain why its
recognizing wjhen the nonmoving party relies only on its own affidavits to oppose summary judgment it cannot rely on conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data to create an issue of material fact holding affidavits based on conclusory allegations insufficient at summary judgment holding that a nonmoving party cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment by relying on conclusory statements holding party opposing summary judgment does not show genuine issue for trial by replacing conclusory allegations of the complaint or answer with conclusory allegations of an affidavit holding that conclusory allegations in an affidavit have no probative value and a nonmoving party cannot rely on the eonclusory allegations to avoid summary judgment