still must demonstrate, “through submissions of evi-dentiary quality, that a trial worthy issue persists.” Iverson v. City of Boston, 452 F.3d 94, 98 (1st Cir. 2006). Moreover, “[o]n issues where the non Movant bears the ultimate burden of proof, [she] must present definite, competent evidence to rebut the motion.” Mesnick v. Gen. Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816, 822 (1st Cir.1991). These showings may not rest upon “conclusory allegations, improbable inferences, and unsupported speculation.” Medina-Muñoz v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir.1990). The evidence offered by the non-moving party “cannot be merely colorable, but must be sufficiently probative to show differing versions of fact which justify a trial.” Id.; See also Horta v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 2, 7-8 (1st Cir. 1993) (<HOLDING>). “The mere existence of a scintilla of
holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion holding that hearsay evidence may be considered on summary judgment if the same evidence would be admissible in another form at trial holding that a district court may not grant summary judgment without giving plaintiff an opportunity to submit materials admissible in a summary judgment proceeding or allowing a hearing on defendants motion holding that a trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling on a motion for summary judgment holding that the materials attached to the motion for summary judgment must be admissible and usable at trial