Rule 56 provides for SJ motions to be made when a party, before trial, wishes to challenge the evidentiary sufficiency of the opponent's case.
If there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law," the motion will be granted.
Post-1986 (Matsushita, Liberty Lobby, Celotex), the SJ standard used is the same as motions for JMOL.
It is not enough for a party opposing SJ to identify a mere scintilla of evidence supporting their case; the evidence must be substantial enough for a reasonable jury to render a verdict in the nonmovant's favor.
The SJ movant must carry the burden of production (identifying evidence, if not contradicted, that would compel a jury to rule in his favor or a showing that the other side lacks evidence from which a reasonable jury could find in their favor (Celotex)).
If the movant carries the burden, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to identify evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find in his favor.
Remember that the burden of production is different depending on whether the movant would carry the burden of persuasion at trial.
The evidentiary standard that will be used at trial should used in deciding SJ motions as well (Liberty Lobby) (adopted in the majority of states).
In cases where there is an elevated evidentiary standard, it is easier for Ds to win SJ.
SJ can be granted even in complex lawsuits, including those where state of mind is an issue. (Matsushita)
Test for SJ sufficiency…
If movant is D (more common)…
Has movant identified evidence, if not contradicted, that would compel a jury to rule in his favor or has the movant shown that the other side lacks necessary evidence from which a reasonable jury could find in their favor?
No. Deny SJ motion.
Yes. (burden shift) Has nonmovant identified evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find in his favor?
Yes. Deny SJ motion.
No. Grant SJ motion.
If movant is P…
Has movant identified evidence, if not contradicted, that would compel a jury to rule in his favor on each element of the claim?
No. Deny SJ motion.
Yes. (Burden shift) Has nonmovant identified evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find in his favor?
Yes. Deny SJ motion.
No. Grant SJ motion.
**Full Summary Judgment**
Summary Judgment (Rule 56)
Purpose:
If the D doubts that the P can prove all of the elements of her complaint, he can challenge her to do so before trial.
SJ motions can be made for all of the P's claims or just some of them, thereby simplifying the trial.
Motion for SJ under FRCP 56 provides this mechanism.
Response:
Non-moving party must respond by demonstrating that the is a "genuine issue of material fact," or the motion will be granted.
NMP must have admissible evidence supporting her allegation.
Evidence not in an admissible form may be considered as long as it can be "reduced to admissible evidence" at trial.
For example, in Celotex, there was a letter from the late husband's boss offered in response. It was not admissible since it was hearsay, but the content could be admissible at trial through testimony. Thus, evidence of this sort should be considered.
56(b) says that a defendant can make a SJ motion "at any time"
Therefore, the case can be dismissed under Rule 56(b) before the D even files an answer.
P may also make a summary judgment motion.
Standard for Granting SJ
Summary judgment may be rendered when the court finds that there is no "genuine issue of material fact" and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Immaterial or minor facts will not prevent SJ. Only facts central to a claim or defense and over which there is a real dispute prevent summary judgment.
Inferences or conclusions should not be taken into account on SJ motions.
Trial judge need only determine that the nonmoving party's evidence on an issue is "facially plausible and capable of being accepted by a rational factfinder."
Standard of Proof: The substantive law determines what facts are material and are to be considered when deciding a motion for SJ.
From Liberty Lobby: "A court must use the substantive evidentiary standard that will be used in deciding the case when considering a motion for summary judgment."
In this case, the nonmovant's heightened evidentiary standard was taken into consideration. This increased the nonmoving party's burden.
Trial judge must bear in mind the actual quantum and quality of the proof, SCOTUS said.
A District Court has the right to deny SJ even in the absence of a factual dispute when there is reason to believe that a trial is necessary to ensure a proper judgment.
Burdens
Moving party has the initial burden of presenting information that clearly establishes that there is no factual dispute regarding the matter upon which SJ is sought.
This is true even if the other party would bear the burden of persuasion at trial.
However, if the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof, he must show that there is no factual dispute on ALL the essential elements of a claim, because if there is no factual dispute on one element, he will have no claim at trial.
If the nonmoving party does not bear the burden of proof, he only needs to show that for one element of a claim.
In Celotex, the court reduced the moving party's initial burden
A movant satisfies the initial burden by either affirmatively negating the nonmoving party's claim, or by demonstrating to the court that the nonmoving party is unable to prove an essential element of that claim.
A movant of a summary judgment motion does not have to provide any evidence to support its motion; it need only show that the opposing party lacks sufficient evidence to support its case.
Key issue here was who had to do discovery: Did D have to prove that P was never exposed to their asbestos, or just prove that P wouldn't be able to prove it?
Court said the latter, but there was disagreement about this.
If the moving party does this, the responding party must come forward with materials to show that there IS a factual dispute.
Recent trend is toward a more liberal use of summary judgment.
Liberty Lobby, Celotex demonstrate this by the tone of the opinions.
In summary judgment questions, be sure to answer with regards to the JURY. The question is always whether the JURY should decide this, not the judge.
