Kitt

facts, a Rand warning, the declaration of an infectious disease expert, and the declaration of 12 Adventist’s counsel in support of its motion. (Doc. No. 36-1 to 36-5). 13 Park filed a statement of non-opposition stipulating that “there is no genuine issue for 14 trial,” that Adventist is entitled to summary judgment “as a matter of law,” and admitting that he 15 had contracted MRSA “before he was admitted to” Adventist. (Doc. No. 40 at 1). Park requests 16 the Court to grant Adventist summary judgment in this matter. (Id. at 2). II. APPLICABLE LAW The “purpose of summary judgment is to pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citation omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment should be entered “after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make 25 a showing sufficient to establish…