Opinion ID: 543590
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Evidence of an Oral Designation Pursuant to Sec. 532

Text: 73 In support of their motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs submitted to the district court a statement of facts they claimed were not in dispute. In it, the plaintiffs claimed that in April of 1987, Teleponce received from PEI's counsel an oral request for commercial access to the channel over which the Playboy Channel was being transmitted pursuant to Sec. 532. The Plaintiffs further claimed that Teleponce orally agreed to this request, and orally designated the channel on which the Playboy Channel is transmitted as a leased access channel. SA at 174. This allegation was supported by a letter from PEI to Teleponce, dated July 22, 1987, confirming the agreement, an affirmation of Mr. Gonzalez, and by the Association's response to interrogatories. SA 90-91, 167-68. In their Opposition to Statement of Material Facts submitted with their summary judgment motion, the defendants stated that they did not accept as uncontroverted this allegation of fact because it was supported by hearsay evidence which could not be admissible at trial, citing Walling v. Fairmont Creamery Co., 139 F.2d 318 (8th Cir.1943). Addendum D to Appellants' Brief at 1. The district court nonetheless went ahead and considered as true the plaintiffs' affirmations about the oral agreement between Teleponce and PEI, when finding that Sec. 558 preempted prosecution of Teleponce because it had designated the relevant channel under Sec. 532 or other similar arrangement. 698 F.Supp. at 418. 74 The defendants argue on appeal that the district court erred in concluding on summary judgment that Teleponce transmits the Playboy Channel over a channel obtained under Sec. 532. While the defendants refer to their earlier objection in the district court, this objection is not the basis for their present argument. Instead, they now argue that there was a genuine issue of fact as to the truth of PEI's evidence, and so the district court should not have relied on that evidence in granting summary judgment. 75 When one party has properly supported a motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (quoting First Nat. Bank v. Cities Service, 391 U.S. 253, 288-89, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 1592, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968)). The defendants did not submit any evidence which contradicted the plaintiffs' proof. However, they argue that, based on surrounding circumstances of the affirmations, the affirmations which support PEI's claim of an oral modification are not credible. 76 We may assume that in a proper case, an opponent of summary judgment can show a genuine issue of material fact without introducing evidence in direct contradiction to a fact presented by the movant, but by showing the existence of specific facts which would give a reasonable jury cause to disbelieve assertions supporting the movant's version. See J. Moore and J. Wicker, 6A Moore's Federal Practice 56.15 at 56-298-99 (1988); C. Wright, A. Miller, M. Kane, 10A Federal Practice & Procedure Sec. 2726 (1990 Supp.). Cf. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co., Etc. v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 701 F.2d 95, 97 (9th Cir.1983) ([N]either a desire to cross-examine an affiant nor an unspecified hope of undermining his or her credibility suffices to avert summary judgment.); Soar v. National Football League Players' Association, 550 F.2d 1287, 1289 n. 4 (1st Cir.1977) (A court is not obliged to deny an otherwise persuasive motion for summary judgment 'on the basis of a vague supposition that something might turn up at the trial,'  (quoting Lundeen v. Cordner, 354 F.2d 401, 408 (8th Cir.1966))). 77 We need not, however, decide defendants' present challenge to the credibility of the assertions of oral modification presented by plaintiffs, because they made no such point before the district court. The defendants objected to the district court's reliance on the assertions of an oral modification only on the ground that they would be inadmissible at trial as hearsay. They have not pressed this argument on appeal, but instead raise a different one not presented to the district court. Issues not raised before the trial court are waived on appeal, Cookish v. Cunningham, 787 F.2d 1, 6 (1st Cir.1986) (per curiam ), absent unusual circumstances or plain error suggesting that a clear miscarriage of justice has occurred. Brown v. Trustees of Boston University, 891 F.2d 337, 359 (1st Cir.1989); Gay v. P.K. Lindsay Co., Inc., 666 F.2d 710, 712 n. 1 (1st Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 975, 102 S.Ct. 2240, 72 L.Ed.2d 849 (1982). The defendants do not say why this issue could not have been raised before the trial court, and we perceive no miscarriage of justice in the district court's consideration of the plaintiffs' affirmations. 78 Even if the defendants had not waived this issue by failing to raise it before Judge Pieras, they waived it by raising it too late on appeal. The defendants only got around to challenging the credibility of the plaintiffs' affirmations in their reply brief. An appellant waives any issue which it does not adequately raise in its initial brief, because in preparing briefs and arguments, an appellee is entitled to rely on the content of an appellant's brief for the scope of the issues appealed. Pignons S.A. de Mecanique v. Polaroid Corp., 701 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1983) (citations omitted). Accord Wells Real Estate v. Greater Lowell Bd. of Realtors, 850 F.2d 803, 811 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 955, 109 S.Ct. 392, 102 L.Ed.2d 381 (1988). We realize that the appellees voluntarily responded to this newly-raised issue in a surreply brief which we granted leave to file. However, in order not to encourage endless rounds of briefing, we still find the issue waived. See Gold v. Wolpert, 876 F.2d 1327, 1331 (7th Cir.1989).