With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". trial may nevertheless raise a material issue of fact on summary judgment if that evidence can be rendered admissible at trial. For example, in Winskunas v. Birnbaum, 23 F.3d 1264 (7th Cir.1994), the Seventh Circuit explained that it is the substance of the affidavit and not the form that controls: The evidence need not be in admissible form; affidavits are ordinarily not admissible evidence at a trial. But it must be admissible in content .... Occasional statements in cases that the party op posing summary judgment must present admissible evidence should be understood in this light, as referring to the content or substance, rather than the form, of the submission. Id. at 1267-68 (citation omitted) (italics in original); see also McMillian v. Johnson, 88 F.3d 1573, 1584 (11th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>), affd sub. nom, McMillian v. Monroe County,

A: holding that unverified complaints cannot be considered as evidence at the summary judgment stage
B: holding that hearsay in affidavit which would be inadmissible in evidence at trial could not be considered on motion for summary judgment
C: holding that hearsay evidence may be considered on summary judgment if the same evidence would be admissible in another form at trial
D: holding that evidence in an inadmissible form may be considered at the summary judgment stage as long as the evidence is submitted in an admissible form at trial
D.