Opinion ID: 2583
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Genuineness of Dispute

Text: While a district court, in considering a motion for summary judgment, is not to resolve factual issues, the court must determine whether a Rule 56.1 response does in actuality present a dispute that is genuine. An objection to the admissibility of a document is not the equivalent of a contention that the document's contents are untrue. Thus, as to the undisputed MLBP assertions to which Salvino made objections, which as noted in the previous section were properly rejected, Salvino's responses were clearly insufficient to show a genuine issue to be tried as to the matters described in the documents. In addition, the district court found that Salvino's responses to several other MLBP assertions, although commencing with the word disputed, did not evince a dispute that was genuine. Those responses often were followed by statements that in effect admitted all or most of the MLBP assertion. For example, MLBP asserted that [i]n the late 1970's, MLBP began the process of clearing the rights to the MLB Club logos and other trademarks in various countries so that they could be licensed for use on retail products sold in those countries. (MLBP Rule 56.1 Statement ¶ 32.) Salvino's response  in addition to objecting on grounds that the document cited by MLBP for that proposition was hearsay, speculative, and lacked foundation  was as follows: DISPUTED and not material. While the cited declarations so state, even if the cited economies can be achieved by collectivizing certain activities, it does not justify an agreement by MLB teams to forego their own output and to divide profits rather than compete. ( See Guth Decl. ¶ 8-11.) (Salvino Response to MLBP Rule 56.1 Statement ¶ 32.) Similarly, as to MLBP's assertion that [w]ithin a few years after 1986, MLBP caused the amount of revenues generated by MLB-licensed product to triple (MLBP Rule 56.1 Statement ¶ 29), Salvino's response, in addition to making hearsay and foundation objections, stated: DISPUTED and not material. Any increase was caused in large part by the logo licensing boom that was prevalent at the time, not by the pooling arrangement, and MLBP does not point to any evidence that increases came at the expense of competitive rivals in a relevant market. See Guth Decl. ¶ 4. Moreover, even if it is economical to streamline some functions, it does not justify an agreement by MLB teams to forego their own output and to divide profits rather than compete. ( Id. ¶¶ 8-11.) ( See Salvino Response to MLBP Rule 56.1 Statement ¶ 29.) The district court considered these responses, as well as certain other similar responses relating to the substantial increase in the number of licenses granted for MLB Intellectual Property, not to present a factual dispute that was genuine. The court stated that Salvino does not dispute MLBP's stated increase in MLBP-licensed products since MLBP took over licensing authority for MLB intellectual property. (MLBP 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 26-36.) Salvino only takes issue with MLBP's proffered reasons for the increase, i.e., it claims the increase is a product of the licensing boom and not a result of MLBP's centralized process. (Salvino Resp. to MLBP 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 29.) 420 F.Supp.2d at 220-21. The district court's view that Salvino did not genuinely dispute the assertion that there was an increase in MLBP-licensed products after MLBP became the Clubs' exclusive licensing agent for MLB Intellectual Property to be used on all retail products was a reasonable interpretation of Salvino's responses. In any event, Salvino does not challenge that ruling in its briefs on appeal.