Ilwu

facts that would be admissible in evidence . . . .”).

Here, even assuming that Belaustegui’s commanding officer orally directed

him to reenlist for the Global War on Terrorism and told him his reenlistment was

required for the war, the alleged statement is inadmissible hearsay. It is an out-of-

court statement offered for its truth: that Belaustegui was involuntarily ordered to

reenlist to serve because of the Global War on Terrorism. To be sure, “[i]f the

contents of a document can be presented in a form that would be admissible at trial—

for example, through live testimony by the author of the document—the mere fact

that the document itself might be excludable hearsay provides no basis for refusing

to consider it on summary judgment.” Sandoval v. County of San Diego, 985 F.3d

657, 666 (9th Cir. 2021). But here, making the relevant statements admissible would

require Belaustegui’s commanding officer to testify. And Belaustegui cannot

identify the commanding officer, let alone present testimony from the commanding

officer, so the relevant contents of Belaustegui’s deposition and interrogatory

responses cannot be presented in an admissible form at trial.

Without…