With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the software platform used by Akira in this case had the capacity (as interpreted by the FCC) to “store or produce, telephone numbers.to be called, using a random or sequential number generator,” see 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1)(A), that would cause Akira to be in violation of the TCPA. See id. § 227(b)(1). Because Blow cannot meet an -essential element to succeed on a TCPA claim, the Court grants Akira’s motion for summary judgment, and denies Blow’s motion for summary judgment. The case is terminated. IT IS SO ORDERED; 1 . The Court has reviewed the parties' statements of material facts and responses thereto, and has struck all facts and responses that did not comply with Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(B) from the following recital. See Petty v. City of Chicago, 754 F.3d 416, 420 (7th Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>). The following undisputed facts are taken from

A: holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying its own local rules even though those rules prevented it from considering some facts improperly alleged by plaintiffs that might have been relevant to the summary judgment motion
B: holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in striking fact statements that did not comply with the local rules
C: holding the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying local rules that excluded some of the material facts offered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment
D: holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by striking facts included in nonmovants responsive memorandum
B.