court, would moot the parties‟ motions to exclude expert testimony and the Bank‟s motion tostrike Patco‟s jury trial demand. Hence, I do not consider the latter three motions.
I. Applicable Legal StandardsA. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56
Summary judgment is
appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine disputeas to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P.56(a);
Santoni v. Potter
, 369 F.3d 594, 598 (1st Cir. 2004). “A dispute is genuine if the evidence
about the fact is such that a reasonable jury could resolve the point in the favor of the non-
Rivera v. Federico Trilla Reg’l Hosp. of Carolina
, 532 F.3d 28, 30(1st Cir. 2008) (quoting
Thompson v. Coca-Cola Co.
, 522 F.3d 168, 175 (1st Cir. 2008)). “Afact is material if it has the potential of determining the outcome of the litigation.”
Maymi v. P.R. Ports Auth.
, 515 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir. 2008)).The party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate an absence of evidence to
support the nonmoving party‟s case.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Indetermining whether this burden is met, the court must view the record in the light mostfavorable to the nonmoving party and give that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences inits favor.
369 F.3d at 598. Once the moving party has made a preliminary showing thatno genuine issue of material fact exists, the
nonmovant must “produce specific facts, in suitableevidentiary form, to establish the presence of a trialworthy issue.”
Triangle Trading Co. v. Robroy Indus., Inc.
, 200 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1999) (citation and internal punctuation omitted);Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
“As to any essential factual element of its claim on which the nonmovant
would bear the burden of proof at trial, its failure to come forward with sufficient evidence togenerate a trialworthy issue warrants summary judgment to the moving party.
In re Spigel
Case 2:09-cv-00503-DBH Document 120 Filed 05/27/11 Page 2 of 70 PageID #: 2929