For even where the jury has found an entitlement to punitive damages, the appropriate punitive damages award may still be zero. Chicago Title Ins. Corp. v. Magnuson , 487 F.3d 985, 1001 (6th Cir. 2007) (applying the State Farm factors and holding that the district court erred in upholding a jury verdict for any punitive damages following the jury's $32.4 million punitive damages and $10.8 million compensatory damages award). In making that threshold assessment, the "most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct."

We generally decline to entertain factual recitations not brought to the district court's attention in the first instance. See Chicago Title Ins. Corp. v. Magnuson, 487 F.3d 985, 995 (6th Cir. 2007) ("[T]he opposing party 'has an affirmative duty to direct the court's attention to those specific portions of the record upon which it seeks to rely to create a genuine issue of material fact.'" (quoting In re Morris, 260 F.3d 654, 665 (6th Cir. 2001))); Sumpter v. Wayne Cnty., 868 F.3d 473, 490 (6th Cir. 2017) ("We have said time and again, district courts cannot be expected to dig through the record to find the seeds of a party's cause of action.").

The mere reference to those technical drawings, inviting the court to cull through them in search of a fact question, "falls well short of 'direct[ing] the court's attention to those specific portions of the record upon which [the plaintiff sought] to rely to create a genuine issue of material fact." Bormuth v. Cty. of Jackson , 870 F.3d 494, 500 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing Chicago Title Ins. Corp. v. Magnuson , 487 F.3d 985, 995 (6th Cir. 2007) ). This Court is not charged with the responsibility of constructing the plaintiffs' arguments for them, from unannotated documents presented to the Court en masse .

"A district court is not required to 'search the entire record to establish that it is bereft of a genuine issue of material fact.'" Chicago Title Ins. Corp. v. Magnuson, 487 F.3d 985, 995 (6th Cir. 2012). Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the record and finds, at least insofar as the Court understands Plaintiff's retaliation claim, it fails for at least three reasons.

” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3); see also Emerson v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 446 Fed.Appx. 733, 736 (6th Cir.2011) (“ ‘[J]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles' that might be buried in the record.”); Chi. Title Ins. Corp. v. Magnuson, 487 F.3d 985, 995 (6th Cir.2007) (“A district court is not required to ‘search the entire record to establish that it is bereft of a genuine issue of material fact.’ ”). “In considering a motion for summary judgment, [a court] must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.

Pls.' Resp. in Opp. to Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. 34, doc. 134. The Plaintiffs, however, do not designate any evidence to support this allegation, and a district court is not obligated to comb through the entire record to determine if any available evidence supports such an allegation, see Emerson v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 446 F. App'x 733, 734 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Chicago Title Ins. Corp. v. Magnuson, 487 F.3d 985, 995 (6th Cir. 2007)). 3.

Adkins, 105 F.4th at 854; see Bennett v. Hurley Med. Ctr., 86 F.4th 314, 324 (6th Cir. 2023); Scottsdale, 513 F.3d at 551-54; Chicago Title Ins. Corp. v. Magnuson, 487 F.3d 985, 995 (6th Cir. 2007); Guarino, 980 F.2d at 405. That is what happened here.

Chi. Title Ins. Corp. v. Magnuson, 487 F.3d 985, 995 (6th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). And we review the "record in the same fashion as the district court."

" Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); see also Emerson v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 446 Fed. Appx. 733, 736 (6th Cir. 2011) ("'[J]udges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles that might be buried in the record."); Chi. Title Ins. Corp. v. Magnuson, 487 F.3d 985, 995 (6th Cir. 2007) ("A district court is not required to 'search the entire record to establish that it is bereft of a genuine issue of material fact.'"). (Pls' Resp. at p. 24, ECF No. 255.)

Dice Corp. v. Bold Techs., 556 F. App'x 378, 384 (6th Cir. 2014). Consequently, the Sixth Circuit has noted that it does "not entertain on appeal factual recitations not presented to the district court when reviewing a district court's decision." Ibid. (citing Chi. Title Ins. Corp. v. Magnuson, 487 F.3d 985, 995 (6th Cir. 2007); Guarino v. Brookfield Twp. Trustees, 980 F.2d 399, 404 (6th Cir. 1992)). "This burden to respond is really an opportunity to assist the court in understanding the facts."