in order to adduce “the answers that will either confirm IBM’s claims of complete innocence or implicate them in procedures and knowledge which they are understandably reluctant to reveal”). If IBM’s motion were predicated upon the argument that the plaintiff has failed to prove IBM’s involvement in the alleged attacks, then the plaintiffs contention that this is a matter appropriately resolved by way of summary judgment would have some merit. However, this is not what IBM argues in support of its motion. Rather, IBM contends that the plaintiff “has [not] even alleged the essential elements of its claim.” Def.’s Opp. at 3 (emphasis added). IBM’s motion is therefore appropriately brought as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 514, 122 S.Ct. 992 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks and citation
holding that rule 12b1 insubstantiality dismissal is appropriate if based on the judges disbelief of a complaints factual allegations whereas a rule 12b6 dismissal is appropriate where while operating under the assumption that all or a set of facts in the complaint are true without regard to whether it is based on an outlandish legal theory or on a close but ultimately unavailing one it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations holding that a court may dismiss a claim under 12b6 only if it appears to a certainty that no relief can be granted under any set of facts provable in support of its allegations or if the allegations accepted as true do not present a claim upon which relief legally can be obtained holding in an appeal from the dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint pursuant to rule 12b6 that when the papers before the sixth circuit indicate that the plaintiff could submit an amended complaint that would state a claim upon which relief can be granted the proper course is to remand to permit the plaintiff to amend holding that rule 12b6 dismissal is proper where it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations holding that dismissal pursuant to rule 12b6 is appropriate if the plaintiff is unable to articulate enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face