With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in favor of Defendant Pima County under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. We review de novo, Dietrich v. John Ascuaga’s Nugget, 548 F.3d 892, 896 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm. 1. The district court permissibly deemed Defendant’s statement of facts to be true because Plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1(b). See Local Rule 56.1(b) (requiring that the non-moving party file a statement of facts that, paragraph by paragraph, states whether it disputes each paragraph of the moving party’s statement of facts). 2. Summary judgment was proper on both the Equal Pay Act claim and the Title VII claim because the work of the proposed comparator, James Casanova, was not substantially equal to Plaintiffs work. See Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 178 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); see also Forsberg v. Pac. Nw. Bell Tel. Co.,

A: holding plaintiff must make concrete showing of a prima facie claim of actionable harm denying motion to quash subpoena to undercover identity of doe defendants where inter alia plaintiff offered sufficient evidence to show it could establish prima facie claim
B: holding that a plaintiff who cannot establish an equal pay act claim likewise cannot establish a paybased title vii claim
C: holding that to establish a prima facie equal pay act claim the plaintiff must show that the jobs being compared are substantially equal
D: holding that the mere allegation that a female professor was paid less than a male colleague for equal work stated a claim under the equal pay act
C.