Page:Warner Bros. Entertainment v. X One X Productions (8th Cir. 2011).pdf/6

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(1) (2010) (superseded Dec. 1, 2010). We review the admission of evidence for consideration at the summary judgment stage for an abuse of discretion. ''Conseco Life Ins. Co. v. Williams'', 620 F.3d 902, 907 (8th Cir. 2010).

While Warner Bros.’s failure to attach the referenced documents to the affidavit was error under the version of Rule 56 in effect at the time, the error was harmless. See Sugarbaker v. SSM Health Care, 190 F.3d 905, 911 (8th Cir. 1999). There is no dispute that the referenced documents were produced to AVELA in discovery. In addition, they were in the record because they were attached to Warner Bros.’s original complaint. Despite having had a full opportunity to review the documents establishing chain of title to the copyrights, AVELA points to no inadequacies in the chain-of-title documents themselves. Because the documents would be admissible at trial, the error in form at the summary judgment stage was harmless in this case. ''Cf. Walker v. Wayne Cnty.'', Iowa, 850 F.2d 433, 435 (8th Cir. 1988) (finding no reversible error in the district court’s consideration of inadmissible hearsay at the summary  -6-