With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of contract claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Defendant’s position is that there are no material issues of fact to try. Both sides have represented that there are no further relevant facts to present. Plaintiffs, however, did not move for summary judgment, and argued that there are triable issues, including whether the Indicative Term Sheet, rather than the two Total Return Swap Agreements, should be considered the agreement. A district judge, presented with a motion for summary judgment, is entitled to search the record and, if no genuine issues of material fact exist, to determine the motion in favor of the party entitled to summary judgment, regardless whether the party is the moving, or the responding, party. Coach Leatherware Co. v. Ann-Taylor, Inc., 933 F.2d 162, 167 (2d Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>); Project Release v. Prevost, 722 F.2d 960, 969

A: holding that district courts sua sponte grant of summary judgment to nonmoving party is an accepted method of expediting litigation
B: holding that sua sponte grant of summary judgment without notice to the parties constitutes reversible error
C: recognizing that nonmoving party must present affirmative evidence  to defeat summary judgment
D: holding that grant of summary judgment is appropriate where the nonmoving party adduces nothing more than speculation to support its claims
A.