With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". set forth in the statement required [of the movant], as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be tried.” Not only did Rossi fail to respond to Progressive’s numbered statements, but the only statements of fact he included were interspersed throughout his brief, in bulleted (not numbered) paragraphs. When a separate, responsive statement of facts is absent, Local Rule 56.1 clearly states the consequences: “[a]ll material facts set forth in the statement required to be served by the moving party will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the statement required to be served by the opposing party.” Thus, the material facts set forth in Progressive’s statement are deemed to be admitted by Rossi. See Conn v. Bull, 307 Fed.Appx. 631, 633 (3d Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); Aubrey v. Sanders, 346 Fed.Appx. 847, 847 (3d

A: holding that anonymous statement was admissible as a statement by a partys agent under rule 801d2d and noting that a district court should be presented with sufficient evidence to conclude that the person who is alleged to have made the damaging statement is in fact a party or an agent of that party
B: holding that the district court did not err in deeming admitted the facts in the movants local rule 561 statement where the party opposing failed to include a separate statement responding to the numbered paragraphs in the moving partys statement
C: holding that improper statement was rendered harmless because the district court sustained the defendants objection  and admonished the jury to disregard the statement
D: holding that because defendant initiated conversation leading to statement trial court did not err in admitting statement
B.