In some 30 years of litigation experience I have never seen the government fail to contest a summary judgment motion. Not only is this minor, it is an extremely significant breakthrough.
Please explain also how such a failure to contest by the government is something other than a fact?
The only question here is whether the assertion of the fact is true, which is a matter of public record.
I didn't say granting it was. It hasn't been granted.
The "minor point" may have been the one(s) in the motion. Failing to respond to the motion only concedes the factual assertions in the motion and does not require the judge to grant summary judgement if the judge still believes there are outstanding issues.
This is why the actual contents of the motion are highly relevent to the story and why it was inexcusable to omit them.
You've also taken my comment out of context. It was only one hypothetical example of a reason not to respond to the motion.