then that party must come forward with more persuasive evidence than otherwise would be necessary to show there is a genuine issue for trial.” Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Staneunch, 142 F.3d 1145, 1149 (9th Cir.1998) (citing Cal. Architectural Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc., 818 F.2d 1466, 1468 (9th Cir.1987)). Conclusory allegations that are unsupported by factual data cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment. Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989). Finally, if the nonmoving party fails to present an adequate opposition to a summary judgment motion, the court need not search the entire record for evidence that demonstrates the existence of a genuine issue of fact. See Carmen v. San Francisco Unified Sck. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1029-31 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). The district court need not “scour the record
holding that the district court may determine whether there is a genuine issue of fact on summary judgment based on the papers submitted on the motion and such other papers as may be on file and specifically referred to and facts therein set forth in the motion papers holding that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion holding the denial of a motion for summary judgment on an issue which is later submitted to the jury is not reviewable recognizing motion to strike as proper vehicle for evaluating objectionable hearsay evidence in opposition papers to summary judgment motion