Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 56(c)). “A ‘genuine’ issue is one that could be resolved in favor of either party, and a ‘material fact’ is one that has the potential of affecting the outcome of the case.” Calero-Cerezo v. U.S. Dep’t. of Justice, 355 F.3d 6, 19 (1st Cir.2004) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). “The moving party ‘bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.’ ” DeNovellis v. Shalala, 124 F.3d 298, 306 (1st Cir.1997) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)); see also Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (<HOLDING>). “Once the moving party has pointed to the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that if the movant cannot demonstrate conclusively that the nonmovant cannot prevail summary judgment is precluded (B) holding that in order for the movant to prevail on a summary judgment motion movant must either factually refute the affirmative defenses or establish that they are legally insufficient (C) holding that a trial court may enter summary judgment for a nonmoving party under appropriate circumstances (D) holding that in summary judgment proceeding movant may prevail by averring that nonmoving party cannot establish an element essential to her case (E) recognizing that the burden on summary judgment shifts to the nonmoving party once the moving party has met its initial responsibility of showing the absence of a triable issue of fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case
Output (English): holding that a trial court may enter summary judgment for a nonmoving party under appropriate circumstances