that were attached to her affidavit and which apparently consisted of defendant’s business records produced during the course of discovery. The court disregarded the exhibits on the basis that Ms. Taylor had “failed to comply with Rule 56(e)’s requirement that documents must be authenticated by ... the affidavit.” Aplt.App. at 5. Rule 56(e) requires that documents referred to in an affidavit be “sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof,” thus Ms. Taylor was required to identify, under oath, the source of the documents and that they had not been altered. In his motion for summary judgment, defendant timely' objected to Ms. Taylor’s failure to properly authenticate the documents in her affidavit. See Noblett v. Gen. Elec. Credit Corp., 400 F.2d 442, 445 (10th Cir.1968) (<HOLDING>). But Ms. Taylor did not simply correct the
recognizing that a partys lack of response to a motion or argument therein is grounds for the district court to assume opposition to the motion is waived and grant the motion holding failure to raise issue of improper measure of damages in trial court waived review of complaints that proper measure of damages was not submitted to jury and that plaintiff failed to present evidence on the proper measure holding that an affidavit that does not measure up to the standards of rule 56e is subject to a motion to strike and formal defects are waived in the absence of a motion or other objection holding that a motion to strike testimony filed the following day does not constitute a timely objection under fed r evidence 103a holding the trial courts failure to convert a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment after an affidavit was filed in response to the motion was harmless error where the affidavit had no impact on thedecisive statute of frauds issue