Opinion ID: 2981636
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: District Court Weighing

Text: Hillman contends that the district court ignored both parties’ statements of undisputed facts, conducted its own inquiry, weighed the evidence, and drew inferences favorable to the movant, contrary to law. As noted, the district court is not tasked with weighing the evidence at the summary judgment stage, but must simply determine if there is a genuine issue of fact for trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. In her reply brief, Hillman concedes that the December 1, 2010 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure clarify that, while not obligated to do so, district courts “may consider other materials in the record” not otherwise cited by the parties. Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). Thus, the district court did not err in reading the depositions of Hillman, Sumlar, and Hampton. Furthermore, it is clear from the court’s opinion that it merely summarized their testimony and did not weigh it or assess their credibility. Instead, the district court simply fulfilled its obligation to determine “whether there is [evidence] upon which a jury can properly proceed to find a verdict for the party producing it, upon whom the onus of proof is imposed.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).