The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the district court did not have to sift through the record and search for admissible evidence which would defeat a summary judgment. In U.S. v. 55443 Suffield Terrace, 607 F.3d 504 (7th Cir. 2010) Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and plaintiff submitted a meandering 35 page response virtually bereft of citations to evidence. Buried on page 33 of that response were two exhibits which are an inadmissible “summary” of his income and available funds. An issue in the summary judgment was the plaintiff’s income deficiency related to the source of funds for the proceeds necessary to buy a home. In affirming a summary judgment for the plaintiff the court discussed the insufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence to defeat the summary judgment vestly:
“At summary judgment, unfortunately for Connors, saying so doesn’t make it so; summary judgment may only be defeated by pointing to admissible evidence in the summary judgment record that creates a genuine issue of material fact, and it was not the district court’s job to sift through the record and make Connors’s case for him, United States v. Dunkel, 927 F. 2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (“Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs”). We find his attempts to raise the issue of additional legitimate income inadequate, and therefore affirm the district court’s granting of summary judgment on the government’s income deficiency or proceeds theory. (PP 510 – 11)