With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". contract between Luray and CGS was never truly cancelled, and that Lu-ray fabricated this story to justify the termination of his employment (calling it. a "premeditated conspiracy”). (Cómpl, at 6.) Tillman attaches and references a statement from Keisha Cockrell, a CGS employee, which he claims corroborates this account. (Feb. 26, 2014, Ltr. (Revised Request for Summ. J. (Dkt. 35), Ex. D (Dkt. 35-1)) at ECF page 15.) However, Cockrell’s statement does not. create a genuine issue of material fact. The statement is unsworn and from a source with no apparent personah knowledge of the contract negotiations. In general, unsworn letters carry little to no weight as evidence in opposition to a motion -for summary judgment. See Hill v. Rayboy-Brauestein, 467 F.Supp.2d 336, 361 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Jude Hotel Corp.,

A: holding that an unsworn letter is not proper summary judgment proof
B: holding that unsworn statements may not be considered on a motion for summary judgment
C: holding that hearsay in affidavit which would be inadmissible in evidence at trial could not be considered on motion for summary judgment
D: holding that a signed but unsworn letter which is not otherwise authenticated is hearsay and should not be considered as evidence in opposition to a motion for summary judgment
D.