rule 56. summary judgment

7/30/2019 Rule 56. Summary Judgment

1/9

Search Cornell

Search al l of LI I . . . Go

ABOUT LII / GET THELAW / FIND A LAWYER / LEGAL ENCYCLOPEDIA / HELP OUT Follow 9,146 followers Like 11k

RULE 56. SUMMARY JUDGMENT

( a ) Mot ion fo r Sum mary Judgm ent o r Pa r t ia l Summ ary Judg me nt . A pa r ty ma y move fo r

summ ary judg men t , i dent i fy ing each c l a im o r de fense o r the pa r t o f each c l a im o r

d e f e n s e o n wh i c h s u mm a r y ju d g m e n t i s so u g h t . T h e c o u r t s h a ll g r a n t s u mma r y

ju d g m e n t if th e m o va n t sh o w s th a t th e re is n o g en u in e d is p u te a s to a n y m a te r ia l fa ct a n d

the mo vant i s en t it led to j udgm ent as a m a t te r o f law. Th e co ur t shou ld s ta te on the r eco rd

the reasons fo r g ran t ing o r deny ing the mot ion .

(b ) T ime to F i l e a Mot ion . Un less a d i f fe ren t t ime i s se t by loca l ru l e o r the co ur t o rders

o therwise , a pa r ty may f il e a mo t ion fo r sum mary j udgm ent a t any t ime unt i l 30 days a f te r

the c lose of a l l d iscovery.

( c ) P rocedures .

(1 ) Sup por t ing Fac tua l Pos i t ions . A pa r ty a sse r t ing tha t a f a c t cann o t be o r i s genu ine l y

d i sputed mu s t suppor t the asse r tion by :

(A ) c i t ing to pa r t i cu la r pa r t s o f m a te r ia l s i n the r eco rd , i nc lud ing depo s i ti ons , docum ents ,

e lectronica l ly s tored info rma t ion, a f fidavi ts or dec lara t ions , s tipulat ions ( inc lud ing those

ma de fo r purpo ses o f the mo t ion o n l y ) , adm issions , in te r rog a t o r y a n s we rs , o r o ther

mater ia ls ; or

(B ) sh ow ing tha t the mate r i a l s c i ted do n o t es tab l i sh the absence o r p resence o f a genu ine

d i spute , o r tha t an adverse pa r ty canno t p roduce a dm issib le ev idence to sup por t the f a c t .

(2 ) Ob jec t ion T ha t a Fac t I s No t Suppo r te d b y A d m i ss ib le E v idence . A pa r ty ma y ob jec t tha t

th e m ater ia l c ited to suppo r t o r d ispute a f a c t canno t be p resented in a fo rm tha t wou ld be

adm issib le in ev idence .

(3 ) Mater i a l s No t C i ted . The cour t need cons ider on l y the c i t ed ma te r ia l s , bu t i t may

cons ider o ther m a te r ia l s in the r eco rd .

(4 ) Aff idavi ts or Dec lara t ions . An a f fidav it o r dec l a ra tion used to sup por t o r opp ose a

mo t ion m us t be mad e on pe rsona l know ledge , se t ou t f a c ts tha t wou ld be adm issib le in

ev idence , and sho w tha t the a f fi an t o r dec l a ran t i s com petent to tes t if y on the m at te r s

stated .

(d ) When Fac ts A re Unava i l ab le to the Non mo vant . I f a non mo vant shows by a f f idav i t o r

dec larat ion that , for spec i f ied re ason s, it canno t presen t facts essent ia l to just i fy i ts

oppo s i tion , the cou r t may :

(1 ) de fe r cons ider ing the mo t ion o r deny i t ;

( 2 ) a l l ow t ime to ob ta in a f f idav i ts o r dec l a ra t ions o r to take d i s covery ; o r

(3 ) i ssue any o ther ap p rop r i a te o rder .

( e ) Fa i l ing to P roper l y Sup por t o r A dd ress a F ac t . I f a pa r ty fa i ls to p roper l y suppo r t an

asser t ion o f f a c t o r f a i l s to p roper l y add ress ano ther pa r ty s a sse r tion o f f a c t a s r equ i red

b y Ru le 56 ( c ) , the cou r t may :

(1 ) g i ve an opp or tun i t y to p ro per l y suppor t o r add ress the f ac t ;

( 2 ) cons ider the f a c t und i sputed fo r purposes o f the m ot ion ;

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

A B O U TA B O UT S E AR C HS E A R C H

9

S E A R C H F E D E R A L R U L E S O F C I V I LS E A R C H F E D E R A L R U L E S O F C I V I L

P R O C E D U R E :P R O C E D U R E :

Go

Lawyers: get l isted for free!

TOOLBOX

Wex : C iv i l P rocedure: Overv iew

Donations cover only 20% of our costs

LAW ABOUT... ARTICLES FROM WEX

S um m ar y J ud gm ent

Mot ion for summary judgment

Mov an t

Genuine issue of m ater ia l f act

Prov is iona l Remed ies

FIND A LAWYER

L a w y e r sL a w y e r s

n e a r H o u s t o n , T e x a sn e a r H o u s t o n , T e x a s

R y a n C o o kR y a n C o o k

Broker Fraud, Secur it ies Law

Hous ton , T X

gold Badge

M a t t S h a r pM a t t S h a r p

Cr imina l Law, Domes t ic V io lence, DU I &

DW I , Juveni le Law, Traf f ic T ickets , Whi te

Col lar C r ime

Hous ton , T X

s i lver Badge

converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/movanthttp://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_procedurehttp://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcphttp://www.law.cornell.edu/http://www.law.cornell.edu/http://www.law.cornell.edu/donatehttp://www.cornell.edu/http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/http://www.web2pdfconvert.com/?ref=PDFhttp://www.web2pdfconvert.com/?ref=PDFhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/provisional_remedieshttp://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/genuine_issue_of_material_facthttp://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/movanthttp://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/motion_for_summary_judgmenthttp://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/summary_judgmenthttp://www.law.cornell.edu/donors/http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_procedurehttp://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/searchhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_procedurehttp://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcphttp://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/help_outhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/wexhttp://lawyers.law.cornell.edu/http://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/get_the_lawhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/about/about_liihttp://www.law.cornell.edu/donatehttp://www.law.cornell.edu/http://www.cornell.edu/search/http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/http://www.cornell.edu/


2/9

( 3 ) g ran t summ ary judg me nt i f the mo t ion an d suppo r t ing m ate r ia l s inc lud ing the f ac ts

cons idered un d i sputed sho w tha t the m ovant i s en t it led to i t ; o r

(4 ) i ssue any o ther ap p rop r i a te o rder .

( f ) Judg me nt Independ ent o f the Mo t ion . A f te r g i ving no t ice and a r easonab le t ime to

respond , the cour t may :

( 1 ) g r a n t su mm a r y ju d g m e n t fo r a n o n mo v a n t ;

( 2 ) g ran t the mo t ion o n gro und s no t r a i sed by a pa r ty ;o r

(3 ) cons ider sum mary j udg me nt on i ts ow n a f te r ident if y ing fo r the pa r t i es ma te r i a l fa c ts

tha t may no t be ge nu ine l y in d ispute .

( g ) Fa i l ing to Gran t A l l the Requ es ted Re l i e f. I f the cou r t does n o t g ran t a l l the r e l i e f

r eques ted by the m ot ion , it may en te r an o rder s ta t ing a ny m ate r ia l f a ct inc lud ing an

i tem o f dam ages o r o ther r e l ie f tha t i s no t genu ine l y in d i spute and t r ea t ing the f ac t a s

es tab l ished in the case .

(h) Af f idavi t or Dec larat ion Su bm itted in Bad F a i th. If sat is f ied that an af f idavi t or

dec la ra t ion und er th i s ru l e i s submi t ted in bad f a ith o r so le ly fo r de lay , the cour t a f te rno t i ce and a r easona b le t ime to r espond ma y o rder the subm i tt ing pa r ty to pay the

o ther pa r ty the r easonab le expen ses , inc lud ing a t to rney s f ees , i t incur red as a r esu l t. An

o f fend ing pa r ty o r a t to rney may a l so be h e ld in contemp t o r sub jec ted to o ther

app rop r i a te san c t ions .

(As am ended Dec . 27 , 1946 , e f f . Ma r . 19 , 194 8 ; J an . 21 , 1963 , e f f. Ju l y 1 , 1963 ; M ar . 2 ,

198 7, ef f. Aug . 1 , 198 7; Apr . 30, 2007 , ef f. Dec. 1 , 2007 ; Mar . 26, 2009, ef f . Dec. 1 , 2009;

Ap r . 28, 2010 , ef f. Dec. 1 , 201 0.)

NN OT ESOT ES O FO F AA DVI SOR YDVI SOR Y CC OMMIT T EEOMMIT T EE O NO N RR ULESULES 1 9 3 7 1 9 3 7

Th is ru l e i s app l i cab le to a l l a c tions , inc lud ing tho se aga ins t the Un i ted S ta tes o r a n

o f f ice r o r ag ency the reo f .

Sum ma ry judg me nt p rocedure i s a method fo r p rom pt ly d i spos ing o f a c t ions in wh i ch

there i s no g enu ine i s sue a s to any m ate r ia l f a c t. It has been ex tens i ve ly used in E ng land

f o r mo r e t h a n 5 0 y e a r s a n d h a s b e e n a d o p t e d in a n u m b e r o f A m e r ic a n s t a te s . N ew Y o r k ,

fo r exam p le , has mad e grea t use o f i t . Dur ing the f ir s t n ine yea rs a f te r i t s adop t ion the re ,

the r eco rds o f New Y ork county a lone show 5 ,600 app l i ca t ions fo r summ ary judg me nts .

Repo r t o f the C om miss ion on the A dm in i st r a tion o f Jus t ice in New Y ork S ta te ( 1934 ) , p .

383 . See a l so Th i rd Ann ua l Repo r t o f the Jud i c i a l Cou nc i l o f the S ta te o f New Y ork ( 1937 ) ,

p . 30 .

In Eng land i t was f i rs t emp loyed o n l y in cases o f l iqu ida ted c l a ims , bu t the re h as been a

s teady en la rgeme nt o f the s cope o f the r em edy unt i l it is now used in ac t ions to r ecover

l and o r cha t te ls and in a l l o ther a c t ions a t l aw, fo r l iqu ida ted o r un l iqu ida ted c l a ims ,

excep t fo r a f ew des igna ted to r t s and b rea ch o f p rom ise o f ma r r i age . Eng l ish Ru les Und er

the Jud i ca tu re A c t ( The A nnu a l P rac t ice , 1937 ) O . 3 , r . 6 ; O rders 14 , 14A , and 15 ; see a l so

O . 32 , r . 6 , au thor iz ing an app l i ca tion fo r j udgm ent a t any t ime u pon adm issions . In

M ich igan (3 Com p .Laws (1 929 ) 1 4260 ) and I ll ino i s ( I ll .Rev .S ta t. ( 1937 ) ch . 110 , 181 ,

259 .15 , 259 .16 ) , i t i s no t l im i ted to l i qu ida ted dem ands . New York (N .Y .R .C .P . ( 1937 ) R u le

113 ; see a l so Ru le 107 ) has b roug ht so man y c la sses o f a c tions unde r the opera t ion o f the

ru le tha t the C om miss ion o n Ad min i s t r a tion o f Jus ti ce in New York S ta te (1934 )

recom men d tha t a l l r es t r ic t ions be r emo ved and tha t the r em edy be ava i l ab le i n any

ac t ion ( p . 287 ) . Fo r the h i s to ry and na ture o f the summ ary judg men t p rocedure and

c i ta t ions o f s ta te s ta tu tes , see C la rk and Sa me now , T h e S u m m a r y Ju d g m e n t ( 1929 ) , 38

Yale L . J . 423 .

Note to Su bd iv is ion (d ) . See Ru le 16 ( P re-T r i a l P rocedure ; Fo rmu la ting I s sues ) and the

Note the re to .

Note to Su bd iv is ions ( e ) and ( f ) . These a re s imi l a r to ru les in M ich igan . M ich .Cou r t Ru les

G i l b e r t G . G a r c i aG i l b e r t G . G a r c i a

C r im ina l Law , DU I & D W I

Conroe, TX

s i lver Badge

O r j a n e l P o i n t e rO r j a n e l P o i n t e r

C onsum er Law

Hous ton , T X

s i lver Badge

L a u r e n M . S w e n s o nL a u r en M . S w e n s o n

Env i ronmenta l Law, Mar i t ime

Hous ton , T X

bronze Badge

See More Lawyers

Al l lawyers

GET INVOLVED

L I I Announce B log

LI I Supreme C our t Bu l let in

M A K E A D O N A T I O N

C ON T R IBU T E C ON T E N T

BE C OME A S PON S OR

G IVE FE E DBAC K

Malpractice Protectiongulfatlantic.com

Legal Defense For A Fraction Of The Cost Of AMalpractice Policy.

ITT Tech Paralegal Career

www.ITT-Tech.edu

Prepare for your future today with a de greefrom ITT Tech. Learn more

Your Car has Lost ValueCollisionClaims.com/DiminishedValue

Learn how much & how to get paidDiminished Value C laims Nation W ide

http://www.web2pdfconvert.com/?ref=PDFhttp://www.web2pdfconvert.com/?ref=PDFhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/contacthttp://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/business_opportunitieshttp://www.law.cornell.edu/wexhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/donors/http://liibulletin.law.cornell.edu/http://blog.law.cornell.edu/http://lawyers.law.cornell.edu/lawyers/locate/


3/9

Ann . (Sea r l , 1933 ) Ru le 30 .

NN OT ESOT ES O FO F AA DVI SOR YDVI SOR Y CC OMMIT T EEOMMIT T EE O NO N RR ULESULES 1 9 4 6 A 1 9 4 6 A MENDMENTMENDMENT

Subd iv is ion ( a ) . T h e a me n d me n t a l lo ws a c la i ma n t to m o v e f o r a s u mm a r y ju d g m e n t a t

any t ime a f te r the exp i r a t ion o f 20 days from the co mm encem ent o f the ac t ion o r a f te r

se rv ice o f a mo t ion fo r sum ma ry judg me nt by the adverse pa r ty . Th i s w i l l no rm a l ly opera te

to perm i t an ea r l ie r mo t ion b y the c l a ima nt than un der the o r ig ina l ru l e , wh ere the phrase

a t any time a f te r the p lead ing in answe r the re to has been se rved opera tes to p revent a

c l a ima nt f rom m ov ing fo r sum ma ry judg men t , even in a case c l ea r l y p roper fo r i ts

exerc i se , un t il a fo rma l an swer h as been f il ed . Thus in Peop les Bank v . Federa l Rese rve

Bank o f San F ranc i s co (N .D .Ca l . 1944 ) 58 F .Supp . 25 , the p la in t if f' s counte r-mo t ion fo r a

summ ary judg men t was s tr i cken as p rem ature , because the de fendan t had no t f il ed an

answ er . S ince Ru le 12 (a ) a l low s a t leas t 20 days fo r an an swer , tha t time p lus the 10 d ays

requ i red in Ru le 56 ( c ) mea ns tha t under o r ig ina l Ru le 56 (a ) a min imum per iod o f 30 days

necessa r i ly has to e l apse in eve ry case be fo re the c l a ima nt can be h ea rd on h i s r igh t to a

summ ary judg men t . An e x tens ion o f t ime b y the cour t o r the se rv i ce o f p re l imina ry

mo t ions o f any k ind w i l l p ro long tha t pe r iod even fu r the r . In m any cases th i s mere l y

rep resents unn ecessa ry de lay . See Uni ted S ta tes v . Ad le r ' s C ream ery , I nc . (C .C .A .2d, 1939)

107 F . (2d ) 987 . The chang es a re in the in te res t o f mo re expe d i t ious l i ti ga t ion . The 2 0-day

per iod , a s p rov ided , g i ves the de fendant an oppo r tun i ty to secure counse l and de te rmine

a course o f a c t ion . Bu t in a case wh ere the de fendan t h imse l f se r ves a mot ion fo r summ ary

ju d g m e n t w it h in th a t ti m e , t h e re is n o re aso n to re st r ic t th e p la in ti ff a n d th e a m e n d e d ru le

so p rov ides .

Subd iv is ion ( c ) . The am endm ent o f Ru le 56 ( c ) , b y the ad d i t ion o f the f ina l sen tence ,

reso l ves a doub t exp ressed in Sa r to r v . A rkansas Na tura l Gas Corp . (1944 ) 3 21 U .S . 620 .

S e e a l s o C o mm e n t a r y, S u m ma r y Ju d g m e n t a s t o Da ma g e s ( 1944 ) 7 Fe d .Ru les Se rv . 974 ;

Made i rense Do B ras il S/A v . S tu lman -Em r i ck Lumber Co . (C .C .A .2d , 1945 ) 147 F . (2d ) 399 ,

ce r t . den . ( 1945 ) 325 U .S . 861 . I t makes c l ea r tha t a l thou gh the que s t ion o f r ecovery

depen ds on the amou nt o f dam ages , the sum ma ry judg men t ru le is app l icab le and

summ ary j udgme nt ma y be gran ted in a p roper case . I f the case i s no t fu l l y ad jud i ca ted i t

ma y be dea l t w i th as p rov ided in subd iv is ion (d ) o f Ru le 56 , and the r igh t to sum mary

recovery de te rmined by a p re l imina ry o rder , i n te r locu to ry in cha rac te r , and the p rec i se

am oun t o f r ecovery l e f t f o r t r ia l .

Subd iv is ion (d ) . Ru le 54 (a ) de f ines j udgm ent a s inc lud ing a de c ree and any o rder f rom

wh ich an appea l l i e s . Subd iv is ion (d ) o f Ru le 56 ind i ca tes c l ea r l y, how ever , tha t a pa r t i a l

summ ary judgm ent i s no t a f ina l j udgm ent , and , the re fo re , tha t i t i s no t appea lab le ,

un less in the pa r t i cu la r case som e s ta tu te a l l ows an appea l from the in te r locu to ry o rder

invo l ved . The pa r t ia l sum mary j udg men t i s mere l y a p re t r i a l ad jud i ca t ion tha t ce r ta in

i s sues sha l l be deem ed e s tab li shed fo r the t r i a l o f the case . Th i s ad jud i ca tion i s m ore

nea r l y ak in to the p re l imina ry o rde r und er Ru le 16 , and l i kewise se r ves the pu rpose o f

speed ing u p l i ti ga t ion by e l imina t ing be fo re t r i a l ma t te r s wh ere in the re i s no g enu ine

issue of fact . See Leona rd v . Socon y-Vacuum O i l Co . (C .C .A .7 th , 1942 ) 1 30 F . (2d ) 53 5 ;

B igg ins v . O l tmer I ron W orks (C .C .A .7 th , 1946 ) 15 4 F . (2d ) 214 ; 3 Mo ore ' s Federa l P rac t i ce

( 1938 ) . 31903 192 . S ince in te r locu to ry appe a l s a re no t a l l owed , excep t where spec i fi ca ll y

p rov ided by s ta tu te ( see 3 Mo ore, op . c i t. supra , 315 531 56) th is interp retat ion is in l ine

with that po l icy, Leona rd v . Socony-Vacuu m O i l Co . , sup ra . See a lso Au di V is ion Inc . , v .

R C A M f g . C o . (C .C .A .2d , 1943 ) 136 F . (2d ) 621 ; T o o m e y v. T o o m e y (App .D.C . 1945 ) 1 49

F . (2d ) 19 ; B igg ins v . O l tme r I ron W orks , sup ra ; Ca t l in v . Un i ted S ta tes ( 1945 ) 324 U .S . 229 .


Subd iv is ion ( c ) . B y the ame ndm ent answers to in te r roga to r i es a re inc luded am ong the

ma t e r ia l s wh i ch m a y b e c o n s i d e re d o n mo t i o n f o r s u mma r y j u d g me n t . T h e p h r a s e wa s

inadver ten t ly om i tted f rom the ru le , see 3 Ba r ron & Ho l tzo f f, Federa l P rac t i ce and

P r o c e d u r e 15960 (W r igh t ed . 1958 ) , and the cou r ts have gen era l ly r eached by

in te rp re ta t ion the r esu l t wh i ch w i ll he rea f te r be r equ i red by the tex t o f the am ended ru le .

See A nno t ., 74 A .L.R .2d 984 (1960 ) .

Subd iv is ion ( e ) . The wo rds answers to in te r roga to r i es a re adde d in the th i rd sen tence

o f th i s subd iv i sion to confo rm to the am endm ent o f subd iv i sion ( c ) .

The l a s t two sen tences a re add ed to o ve rcome a l i ne o f cases , ch ie f ly i n the Th i rd C i r cu i t ,

http://www.web2pdfconvert.com/?ref=PDFhttp://www.web2pdfconvert.com/?ref=PDF


4/9

wh ich has impa i red the u t i li ty o f the sum ma ry j udgme nt dev i ce . A t yp i ca l case i s a s fo l low s :

A pa r ty suppo r ts h is mo t ion fo r sum ma ry judg men t by a f fidav it s o r o ther ev ident ia r y

ma t te r s su f f ic i en t to sho w tha t the re i s no ge nu ine i s sue as to a ma te r ia l f a c t. The adverse

pa r ty , i n oppo s ing the mo t ion , does n o t p rodu ce any ev ident i a r y ma t te r , o r p roduces

some but no t enou gh to es tab l ish tha t the re i s a gen u ine i s sue fo r t r ia l . I ns tead , the

adverse pa r ty r es ts on ave rm ents o f h i s p l ead ings wh ich on the i r f a ce p resent an i s sue . I n

th i s s i tua t ion Th i rd C i r cu i t cases have taken the v i ew tha t sum mary j udgm ent mu s t be

den ied , a t l eas t if the ave rm ents a re we l l-p leaded , and n o t suppo s i tious , conc luso ry , o r

ul t imate. See F reder i ck Ha r t & C o . , Inc . v . Reco rdg raph C orp . , 169 F .2d 580 (3d C i r . 1948 ) ;

Uni ted S ta tes ex re l . Ko l ton v . Ha lpern , 260 F .2d 590 (3d C i r . 1958 ) ; Uni ted S ta tes ex re l .

Nob les v . Ivey Bros . Con str . Co . , Inc . , 191 F .Supp . 383 (D .De l. 1961 ) ; Ja m is o n v .

Penn sy lvan ia Sa l t M fg . Co . , 22 F .R .D. 238 (W.D.Pa . 1958 ) ; Bunn y Bea r , I nc . v. Denn i s

Mitchel l Ind ustr ies , 139 F .Sup p . 542 ( E .D .Pa . 1956 ) ; Levy v . Equi tab le L i fe Assur . Soc iety, 1 8

F.R .D. 164 (E .D.Pa . 1955 ) .

The ve ry miss ion o f the summ ary judg me nt p rocedure i s to p ie r ce the p lead ings and to

assess the p ro o f in o rder to see w hether the re i s a gen u ine ne ed fo r t r ia l . The T h i rd C i r cu i t

doc t r ine , wh i ch permi ts the p lead ings them se l ves to s tand in the w ay o f g ran t ing an

o therwise j us t if ied sum ma ry judg me nt , is i ncomp at ib l e w i th the bas i c purpo se o f the ru le .

S e e 6 Moo re ' s Federa l P rac t i ce 2069 (2 d ed . 1953 ) ; 3 Ba r ron & Ho l tzo f f, sup ra , 1235 .1 .

I t is ho ped tha t the am endm ent w i ll cont r ibu te to the m ore e f fec t ive u t i li za tion o f the

sa lu ta r y dev i ce o f sum ma ry judgm ent .

The am endm ent i s no t in tended to derog a te f rom the so lemni ty o f the p lead ings . Ra ther

i t r ecogn izes tha t , desp i te the bes t e f fo r ts o f cou nse l to m ake h i s p l ead ings accura te , they

ma y be overw he lming ly cont rad i c ted by the p ro o f ava i lab le to h i s adversa ry .

Nor i s the amen dm ent des igned to a f fec t the o rd ina ry s tanda rd s app l i cab le to the

summ ary judg men t mot ion . So , fo r exam p le : Wh ere an i s sue as to a ma te r i a l f a c t canno t

be reso l ved w i thout ob serva t ion o f the de me anor o f w i tnesses in o rd er to eva lua te the i r

c red ib il it y , sum mary j udg me nt i s no t app rop r i a te . Where the ev ident i a r y ma t te r in sup por t

o f the m ot ion does no t es tab l ish the absence o f a genu ine i s sue , sum mary j udgm ent mus t

be den ied even i f no oppos ing ev ident i a r y ma t te r i s p resented . And sum mary j udgm ent

ma y be inapp rop r i a te where the p a r ty oppo s ing i t show s under subd iv is ion ( f ) tha t hecann ot at the t im e prese nt facts essent ia l to just i fy h is oppo s i t ion .


The am endm ents a re techn i ca l . No subs tan t i ve chang e i s in tended .

CC OMMIT T EEOMMIT T EE NN OT ESOT ES O NO N RR ULESULES 2 0 0 7 A 2 0 0 7 A MENDMENTMENDMENT

The l ang uage o f Ru le 56 has been ame nded as pa r t o f the gen era l r es ty l ing o f the C i v i l

Ru les to make them m ore eas i ly unders tood an d to make s ty le and te rmino log y cons i sten t

th rough out the ru les . These ch ang es a re in tended to be s ty li s ti c on l y .

Fo rm er Ru le 56 (a ) and (b ) r e f e r red to summ ary- judg men t mo t ions on o r aga ins t a

c l a im, cou nte rc la im, o r c rossc l a im, o r to ob ta in a dec l a ra to ry judg men t . The l is t was

incomplete. Rule 56 appl ies to th i rd-party c la imants , intervenors , c la imants in

in te rp leader , and o thers . Am ended R u le 56 (a ) and (b ) ca r r y fo rward the p resent mea n ing

by re fe r r ing to a pa r ty c l a iming re l ie f and a pa r ty aga ins t who m re l ie f i s soug ht .

Fo rm er Ru le 56 ( c ) , ( d ) , and ( e ) s ta ted c ir cumstances in wh i ch summ ary judg me nt sha l l

be ren dere d, the cou rt sha l l i f pract icab le ascerta in facts ex is t ing w i thou t sub stant ia l

cont roversy , and i f app rop r i a te , sha l l en te r sum ma ry j udgm ent . I n each p lace sha l l i s

chang ed to shou ld . It i s es tab l i shed tha t a l thou gh there i s no d i s c re t ion to en te r

summ ary j udgme nt wh en the re i s a gen u ine i s sue as to any m ate r ia l f a ct , the re i s

d i s c re t ion to den y summ ary judg me nt when i t appea rs tha t the re i s no g enu ine i ssue as to

any m ater ia l fact . Kenn edy v . S i l a s Mason Co . , 334 U .S . 249 , 256 257 (19 48 ) . Many lower

cour t dec i s ions a re g a thered in 10A Wr ight , M i ll e r & Kane , Fede ra l P rac ti ce & P rocedure :

C i v il 3d , 2728 . Shou ld in am ende d Ru le 56 ( c ) r ecogn izes tha t cour ts w i l l s e ldom

exerc i se the d i s c re tion to deny sum mary j udgm ent wh en the re i s no gen u ine i s sue as to

any m ate r ia l f a c t. S imi l a r ly spa r ing exerc i se o f th i s d i s c re tion i s app rop r i a te und er Ru le

56 (e ) (2 ) . Ru le 56 (d ) (1 ) , on the o ther han d , r e fl ec ts the mo re open -ende d d i s c re tion to



5/9

dec ide wh ether i t is p rac t icab le to de te rmine w ha t m a te r i a l f a c ts a re no t genu ine l y a t

issue.

Fo rm er Ru le 56 (d ) u sed a va r i e ty o f d i f fe ren t phrases to exp ress the Ru le 56 ( c ) s tanda rd

fo r summ ary judgm enttha t the re i s no genu ine i s sue as to any m ate r i a l f a c t. Am ended

Ru le 56 (d ) ado p ts te rms d i r ec t ly pa ra l l e l to R u le 56 ( c ) .


The t iming p rov i s ions fo r summ ary judg me nt a re ou tmod ed . They a re conso l ida ted and

subs tan t ia l ly r ev i sed in n ew subd iv i sion ( c ) ( 1 ) . The new ru le a l low s a pa r ty to m ove fo r

summ ary judg men t a t any t ime , even as ea r ly a s the com men cemen t o f the ac t ion . If the

mo t ion seem s p remature bo th subd iv is ion ( c ) (1 ) and Ru le 6 (b ) a ll ow the cour t to ex tend

the t ime to r espond . The ru le does se t a p resum pt ive dead l ine a t 30 days a f te r the c lose o f

a l l d iscovery.

The p resum pt ive t iming ru les a re de fau l t p rov is ions tha t may be a l te red by an o rder in

the case o r b y loca l ru le . Schedu l ing o rders a re l i ke ly to supersede the ru le p rov i s ions in

mo s t cases , de fe r r ing sum mary- judgm ent mo t ions u nt i l a s ta ted time o r es tab l i sh ing

d i ff e ren t dead l ines . Schedu l ing o rders ta i lo red to the n eeds o f the spec i f ic case , pe rhaps

ad jus ted as i t p rogresses , a re l ike l y to wo rk be t te r than d e fau l t ru les . A s chedu l ing o rder

ma y be ad jus ted to adop t the pa r t i es agreem ent on t iming , o r may requ i re tha t d i s covery

and m ot ions occur in s tagesinc lud ing sepa ra t ion o f expe r t-wi tness d i s covery f rom o ther

d iscovery.

Loca l ru l es may p rove u se fu l when loca l docke t cond i t ions o r p rac t ices a re incom pat ib le

wi th the gen era l Ru le 56 t iming p rov i s ions .

I f a m ot ion fo r summ ary judg me nt i s fi led be fo re a r espons i ve p lead ing i s due f rom a

pa r ty a f fec ted by the m ot ion , the t ime fo r r espo nd ing to the m ot ion i s 21 days a f te r the

respons i ve p lead ing i s due .


Ru le 56 i s r ev ised to improve the p rocedu res fo r p resent ing an d dec id ing sum mary-

ju d g m e n t m o ti o n s a n d to m ake th e p ro ced u re s m o re co n si st e n t w ith th o se a lr e a d y u se d in

ma n y c o u r ts . T h e s ta n d a r d f o r g r a n t in g s u mm a r y ju d g m e n t r e ma i n s u n c h a n g e d . T h e

languag e o f subd iv i s ion ( a ) con t inues to r equ i re tha t the re be n o ge nu ine d i spute as to

any m ate r ia l f a ct and tha t the mo vant be en t i t led to j udgm ent as a m a t te r o f l aw. The

am endm ents w i l l no t a f f ec t cont inu ing deve lopm ent o f the dec is iona l law co ns t ru ing and

app ly ing these phrases .

Subd iv is ion ( a ) . Subd iv is ion ( a ) ca r r ies fo rward the sum mary- judgm ent s tanda rd

exp ressed in fo rmer subd iv i sion ( c ) , chang ing on l y one w ord g enu ine i s sue becom es

genu ine d i spute . D ispute be t te r r e fl ec ts the focus o f a sum ma ry- judg men t

de te rmina t ion . As exp la ined b e low, sha l l a l so i s res to red to the p lace i t he ld f rom 1 938

t o 2 0 0 7 .

The f i r s t sen tence i s added to make c l ea r a t the beg inn ing tha t summ ary judg me nt may

be requ es ted no t on l y a s to an en t i r e case but a l so as to a c l a im, de fense , o r pa r t o f a

c l a im o r de fense . The subd iv is ion cap t ion ad op ts the comm on p hrase pa r t ia l summ ary

ju d g m e n t to d e scr ib e d is p o s it io n o f le ss th a n th e w h o le a ct io n , w h e th e r o r n o t th e o rd e r

grants a l l the r e l i e f r eques ted by the m ot ion .

Sha l l i s r esto red to exp ress the d i r ec t ion to g ran t summ ary j udgme nt . The wo rd sha l l

i n Ru le 56 acqu i red s ign i fi cance over many decad es o f use . Ru le 56 w as amen ded in 2007

to rep lace sha l l w i th shou ld a s pa r t o f the S ty le P ro j ec t , a c ting u nder a con vent ion tha t

p roh ib i ted any use o f sha l l . Com men ts on p ropo sa l s to amen d Ru le 56 , a s pub l i shed in

2008 , have sho wn tha t ne i the r o f the cho i ces ava i lab le und er the S ty l e P ro jec t convent ions

mus t o r shou ld i s su itab le in l igh t o f the case l aw on wh ether a d i s t r ic t cour t hasd i s c re t ion to deny sum mary j udgm ent when the re appea rs to be no gen u ine d i spute as to

any m ate r ia l f a c t. Com pare And erson v . L ibe r ty Lobby , I nc ., 477 U .S . 242 , 255 (1986 )

( Ne ithe r do w e sug ges t tha t the t r ia l cour ts shou ld ac t o ther than w i th cau t ion in gran t ing

summ ary judg men t o r tha t the t r ia l cour t may no t deny sum ma ry judg me nt in a case in

wh ich the re i s r eason to be l i eve tha t the be t te r course wo u ld be to p roceed to a fu l l tr i a l.



6/9

Kenn edy v . S i l a s Mason Co . , 334 U .S . 249 * * * ( 194 8 ) ) , w i th Ce lo tex C orp . v . Ca t re tt , 477

U .S . 317 , 322 (1986 ) ( I n our v i ew, the p la in l angu age o f Ru le 56 ( c ) mand a tes the en t r y o f

summ ary judg men t , a f te r adequ a te t ime fo r d i s covery and upo n m ot ion , aga ins t a pa r ty

wh o f a i l s to m ake a sh ow ing su f f ic i en t to es tab l i sh the e x i s tence o f an e l em ent essent i a l to

tha t pa r ty s case , and o n w h ich tha t pa r ty w i l l bea r the bu rden o f p roo f a t t r ia l . ) .

E l imina t ing sha l l c r ea ted an una ccep tab le r isk o f chang ing the sum mary- judgm ent

s tanda rd . Res to r ing sha l l a vo ids the un in tended consequ ences o f any o ther wo rd .

Subd iv is ion ( a ) a l so adds a new d i r ec tion tha t the cour t shou ld s ta te on the r eco rd the

reasons fo r g ran t ing o r deny ing the m ot ion . Mos t cour ts r ecogn ize th i s p rac t ice . Amon g

other advan tages , a s ta temen t o f r easons can f ac il it a te an app ea l o r subsequ ent t r ia l -

cour t p roceed ings . It i s pa r t icu la r ly impo r tan t to s ta te the r easons fo r g ran t ing su mm ary

ju d g m e n t. T h e fo rm a n d d e ta il o f th e st a te m e n t o f r e aso n s a re le ft to th e co u rts

d iscret ion.

The s ta tement on deny ing sum ma ry judgm ent need no t add ress eve ry ava i lab le r eason .

But ident i fi c a tion o f cen t ra l is sues m ay he lp the pa r t i es to focus fu r the r p roceed ings .

Subd iv is ion (b ) . The t iming p rov i s ions in fo rm er subd iv i sions ( a ) and ( c ) a re supersede d .

A l though the ru le a l low s a mot ion fo r sum mary j udgm ent to be f il ed a t the

comm encem ent o f an ac t ion , i n man y cases the m ot ion w i l l be p rem ature unt i l the

non mo vant has had t ime to f il e a r espons i ve p lead ing o r o ther p re t r ia l p roceed ings have

been had . Schedu l ing o rders o r o ther p re t r i a l o rders can regu la te t iming to f it the n eeds

o f the case .

Subd iv is ion ( c ) . Sub d iv is ion ( c ) is new . It es tab l i shes a com mo n p roced ure fo r seve ra l

aspec ts o f sum ma ry- judg men t mot ions syn thes ized f rom s imi l a r e lem ents deve loped in

the cases o r found in man y loca l ru l es .

Subd iv is ion ( c ) ( 1 ) add resses the w ays to suppor t an asse r t ion tha t a f a c t can o r cann o t

be ge nu ine l y d i sputed . I t does n o t add ress the fo rm fo r p ro v id ing the r eq u i red suppo r t .

D i ff e ren t cour ts and judge s have ad op ted d i f f e ren t fo rm s inc lud ing , fo r exam p le ,

d i r ec tions tha t the sup por t be inc luded in the m ot ion , made p a r t o f a sepa ra te s ta temen t

o f f a c ts , i n te rpo la ted in the bo dy o f a b r i e f o r mem orand um , o r p rov ided in a sepa ra te

s ta tem ent o f f a cts inc luded in a b r i e f o r mem orand um .

Subd iv is ion ( c ) ( 1 ) (A ) desc r ibes the f am i li a r r eco rd m ate r ia l s comm only r e l ied u pon and

requ i res tha t the mo vant c i te the pa r t icu la r pa r t s o f the mate r i a l s tha t suppor t i t s f a c t

pos i t ions . Ma te r i a l s tha t a re no t ye t i n the r eco rd inc lud ing ma te r ia l s r e f e r red to in an

a f fidav it o r dec l a ra t ion mu s t be p laced in the r eco rd . On ce m ate r ia l s a re in the r eco rd ,

the cour t m ay , by o rder in the case , d i r ec t tha t the mate r i a l s be ga thered in an a ppend ix , a

pa r ty may vo lunta r i ly subm i t an ap pend ix , o r the pa r t i es may subm i t a j o in t append ix . The

appen d ix p rocedu re a l so m ay be es tab l i shed by loca l ru l e . Po in t ing to a spec i f ic l oca t ion in

an ap pend ix sa t is f ies the c i t a tion requ i rement . So too i t may be con ven ien t to d i r ec t tha t a

pa r ty a ss is t the co ur t i n l oca t ing ma te r ia l s bur i ed in a vo lum inous reco rd .

Subd iv is ion ( c ) ( 1 ) ( B ) r ecogn izes tha t a pa r ty need n o t a lways po in t to spec i fi c r eco rd

ma te r ia l s . One pa r ty , w i thout c i ti ng an y o ther m a te r ia l s , ma y respond o r r ep l y tha t

ma te r ia l s c it ed to d i spute o r supp or t a f a c t do no t es tab li sh the absence o r p resence o f a

genu ine d i spute . And a pa r ty who d oes no t have the tr i a l burden o f p roduc t ion ma y re l y

on a show ing tha t a pa r ty who do es have the t ri a l burden canno t p roduce adm issib le

ev idence to ca r r y i t s burden as to the f a c t.

Subd iv is ion ( c ) ( 2 ) p rov ides tha t a pa r ty may o b jec t tha t m a te r i a l c i ted to suppo r t o r

d i spute a f a c t canno t be p resented in a fo rm tha t wou ld be adm issib le in ev idence . The

ob jec t ion func t ions mu ch as an ob jec t ion a t t r ia l , ad jus ted fo r the p re t r ia l s e t ting . The

burden i s on the p ropo nent to show tha t the m ate r i a l i s admiss ib le a s p resented o r to

exp la in the adm issib le fo rm tha t i s an t ic ipa ted . There i s no n eed to m ake a sepa ra te

m otion to s tr ike. If the case g oe s to tr ia l , fa i lure to cha l leng e adm iss ib i l ity a t the sum m ary-

ju d g m e n t s ta g e d o e s n o t fo r fe it th e r ig h t to ch a ll e n g e a d m is si b il it y a t tr ia l.

Su bdiv is ion (c ) (3 ) ref lects jud ic ia l op in ions an d loca l ru les provis ions s tat ing that the

c o u r t ma y d e c i d e a m o t io n f o r s u mma r y j u d g me n t w i th o u t u n d e r ta k in g a n i n d e p e n d e n t

sea rch o f the r eco rd . Non ethe less , the ru le a l so r ecogn izes tha t a cou r t may con s ider

record m ater ia ls not ca l led to i ts a t tent ion by the pa rt ies .



7/9

Subd iv is ion ( c ) ( 4 ) ca r r ies fo rward som e o f the p rov i s ions o f fo rmer subd iv is ion ( e ) ( 1 ) .

O ther p rov i s ions a re r e loca ted o r om i tted . The requ i reme nt tha t a sworn o r ce r t if ied copy

o f a p aper r e fe r red to in an a f f idav i t o r dec l a ra t ion be a t tached to the a f f idav it o r

dec la ra t ion i s omi t ted as u nnecessa ry g i ven the r equ i remen t in sub d iv is ion ( c ) ( 1 ) (A ) tha t a

s ta tem ent o r d i spute o f f a c t be suppo r ted by ma te r ia l s in the r eco rd .

A fo rm a l a f fidav it is no long er r equ i red . 28 U .S .C . 1746 a l l ows a w r i tten unsw orn

dec la ra t ion , ce r t i fi c a te , ve r i fi c a tion , o r s ta tem ent sub sc r ibed in p ro per fo rm as t rue und er

pen al ty of per jury to subst i tute for an af f idavi t.

Subd iv is ion (d ) . Sub d iv is ion (d ) ca r r i es fo rwa rd w i thou t subs tan t ia l change the

p rov i s ions o f fo rm er sub d iv is ion ( f ) .

A pa r ty wh o seeks r e l i e f und er subd iv i sion (d ) ma y seek an o rder de fe r r ing the t ime to

r e s p o n d t o t h e s u mm a r y- ju d g m e n t mo t i o n .

Subd iv is ion ( e ) . Subd iv is ion ( e ) add resses ques t ions tha t a r i se whe n a pa r ty f a il s to

suppo r t an asse r t ion o f f a c t o r f a i ls to p rop er l y add ress ano ther pa r ty s a sse r t ion o f f a c t a s

requ i red by Ru le 56 ( c ) . A s exp la ined be low , sum mary j udgm ent canno t be gran ted by

de fau l t even i f the re i s a comp le te f a il u re to r espond to the m ot ion , much l ess whe n an

a t tem pted response f a i l s to com p ly w i th Ru le 56 ( c ) r equ i remen ts . Nor sho u ld i t be den ied

by de fau l t even i f the m ovant com p le te ly f a il s to r ep l y to a n onm ovant s r esponse . Be fo redec id ing on o ther po ss ib le ac t ion , subd iv i s ion ( e ) ( 1 ) r ecogn izes tha t the cour t m ay a f fo rd

an o ppor tun i t y to p roper l y suppor t o r add ress the f ac t . I n man y c i rcumstances th i s

opp ortun i ty wi l l be the co urt s preferre d f i rs t s tep .

Subd iv is ion ( e ) ( 2 ) au thor izes the cour t to cons ider a f a c t a s und i sputed fo r purposes o f

the mo t ion w hen response o r r ep l y r equ i rements a re no t sa ti s fi ed . Th i s app roa ch re f l ects

the deem ed ad mi t ted p rov is ions in man y loca l ru les . The f ac t is cons idered u nd i sputed

on ly fo r purposes o f the m ot ion ; if summ ary j udgm ent i s den ied , a pa r ty who f a il ed to

ma ke a p rop er Ru le 56 respo nse o r r ep l y r ema ins f r ee to con tes t the f a c t i n fu r the r

p roceed ings . And the cou r t may choose n o t to cons ider the f a c t a s und i sputed ,

pa r t i cu la r l y i f the cour t know s o f r eco rd ma te r ia l s tha t show grou nds fo r gen u ine d i spute .

Subd iv is ion ( e ) ( 3 ) r ecogn izes tha t the cou r t may gran t summ ary j udgm ent on l y i f the

mo t ion an d suppo r t ing m ate r ia l s inc lud ing the f ac ts cons idered un d i sputed under

subd iv i sion ( e ) ( 2 ) show tha t the mo vant i s en t it led to i t . Con s ider ing some f ac ts

und i sputed does no t o f it se lf a l low summ ary j udgme nt . If the re i s a p roper r espo nse o r

rep l y a s to som e f ac ts , the cour t canno t g ran t sum ma ry judg me nt w i thout de te rmin ing

wh ether those f ac ts can be gen u ine l y d isputed . Once the cour t has de te rmined the se t o f

f a c ts bo th those i t has chosen to con s ider und i sputed fo r want o f a p roper r espon se o r

rep l y and any tha t canno t be gen u ine l y d isputed desp i te a p rocedura l l y p roper r espon se

or r ep l y i t mus t de te rmine the l ega l consequen ces o f these f acts and perm issib le

in fe rences from them .

Subd iv is ion ( e ) ( 4 ) r ecogn izes tha t s t il l o the r o rders ma y be ap p rop r i a te . The cho i ce

am ong po ss ib le o rders shou ld be des igne d to encourage p rop er p resenta t ion o f the

reco rd . Many co ur ts take ex t ra ca re w i th p ro se l it igan ts , adv i sing them o f the ne ed to

respond a nd the r i sk o f los ing by sum ma ry judg men t if an adequ a te r esponse i s no t fi led .

And the cour t may seek to r eassure i tse l f b y some e xam ina t ion o f the r eco rd be fo re

grant ing sum ma ry judg men t aga ins t a p ro se l it igan t .

Subd iv is ion ( f ) . Subd iv is ion ( f ) b r ings in to Ru le 56 tex t a num ber o f r e l a ted p rocedures

tha t have grow n up in p rac t ice . A f te r g i v ing n o t i ce and a r eason ab le t ime to r espond the

c o u r t ma y g r a n t s u mma r y j u d g me n t fo r t h e n o n m o v in g p a r ty ; g ra n t a m o t io n o n l e g a l o r

f ac tua l g rou nds no t r a ised by the pa r t i es ; o r cons ider sum mary j udgm ent on i t s own . In

ma ny cases i t may p rove u se fu l fi r s t to inv i te a mo t ion ; the inv i ted mo t ion w i l l

au tom at ica l ly t r igger the r egu la r p rocedure o f subd iv i s ion ( c ) .

Subd iv is ion (g ) . Sub d iv is ion (g ) app l i es when the cour t does n o t g ran t a l l the r e l i e f

r eques ted by a m ot ion fo r summ ary judg me nt . I t becom es re l evant on l y a f te r the cour t has

app l i ed the summ ary- judg men t standa rd ca r r i ed fo rward in subd iv i sion ( a ) to each c l a im,

de fense , o r pa r t o f a c l a im o r de fense , ident if ied by the mo t ion . On ce tha t du ty i s

d i s cha rged , the cour t may dec ide wh ether to app ly the summ ary- judg me nt s tanda rd to



8/9

R u le 5 5 . De fa u lt; De fa u lt Ju d g m en t u p R u le 5 7 . De cla ra to ry Ju d g m en t

d i spose o f a m a te r i a l f a c t tha t i s no t gen u ine l y in d i spute . The cour t m us t take ca re tha t

th i s de te rmina t ion does no t in te r f e re w i th a p a r ty s ab i l it y to accep t a f a c t fo r purposes o f

the mo t ion o n l y . A no nm ovant , fo r exa mp le , ma y fee l con f ident tha t a genu ine d i spute as

to one o r a f ew f ac ts w i ll de fea t the m ot ion , and p re fe r to avo id the cos t o f de ta i led

response to a l l fa c ts s ta ted by the m ovant . Th i s pos i ti on shou ld be ava i l ab le w i thou t

runn ing the r i sk tha t the f a c t w i l l be taken as es tab l ished u nder su bd iv is ion (g ) o r

o therwise found to have been accep ted fo r o ther purpo ses .

I f it i s r ead i ly appa rent tha t the cou r t canno t g ran t a l l the r e l ie f r eques ted b y the m ot ion ,

i t may p roper l y dec ide tha t the cos t o f de te rmin ing w hether som e po tent ia l f a c t d i sputes

ma y be e l imina ted by summ ary d i spos it ion i s g rea te r than the cos t o f r eso l v ing tho se

d isputes by o ther m ean s, inc lud ing tr ia l . Even i f the cou rt bel ieves that a fact is not

genu ine l y in d i spute i t may re f r a in f rom o rder ing tha t the f a c t be t r ea ted as es tab l ished .

The cour t ma y conc lude tha t i t is be t te r to l eave op en fo r t r i a l fa c ts and i s sues tha t may be

better i l lum inated by the tr ia l of re la ted facts tha t must be tr ied in an y event .

Subd iv is ion (h ) . Sub d iv is ion (h ) ca r r i es fo rward fo rm er subd iv i s ion (g ) w i th th ree

chang es . Sanc t ions a re m ade d i s c re t iona ry , no t m anda to ry , r e f lec t ing the exper i ence tha t

cour ts se ldom invoke the independ ent Ru le 56 au tho r i ty to imp ose sanc t ions . S e e Ceci l &

Cor t , Federa l Jud i c i a l Cen te r Mem orand um o n Federa l Ru le o f C i v il P rocedure 56 (g )

Mo t ions fo r S anc t ions (Ap r i l 2 , 2007 ) . I n add i t ion , the ru le tex t is expan ded to r ecogn ize

the need to p rov ide no t i ce and a r easo nab le t ime to r espon d . F ina l ly , au thor i t y to impo se

o ther app rop r i a te sanc t ions a l so i s recogn ized .

C h a n g e s M a d e A f t er P u b l ic a ti o n a n d C o m me n t

SS UBDIV I S IONUBDIV I S ION (( AA ) :) : [ S ]ho u ld gran t was chang ed to sha l l g ran t .

[ T ]he movant show s tha t was added .

Langua ge abo ut ident if y ing the c l a im o r de fense w as mo ved up f rom subd iv i sion ( c ) ( 1 )

as pub l i shed .

SS UBDIV I S IONUBDIV I S ION (( BB ) :) : The spec i f ica t ions o f times to r espon d and to r ep l y were de le ted .

Wo rds r e fe r r ing to an o rder i n the case were de le ted .

SS UBDIV I S IONUBDIV I S ION (( CC ) :) : The de ta i led po in t-counte rpo in t p rov i s ions p ub l i shed as subd iv i s ion

( c ) ( 1 ) and (2 ) w ere de le ted .

The requ i rement tha t the cour t g i ve no t ice be fo re gran t ing summ ary judg me nt on the

bas i s o f r eco rd m ate r i a ls no t c it ed by the pa r t i es was de le ted .

The p rov i s ion tha t a pa r ty may accep t o r d i spute a f a c t fo r purposes o f the m ot ion on l y

was de le ted .

SS UBDIV I S IONUBDIV I S ION (( EE ) :) : The l ang uag e was rev i sed to r e fl ec t e l imina t ion o f the po in t-

counte rpo in t p rocedure f rom subd iv is ion ( c ) . The n ew l ang uag e reaches f a i lu re to

p roper l y suppor t an a sse r tion o f f a c t in a m ot ion .

SS UBDIV I S IONUBDIV I S ION (( FF ) :) : The p rov i s ion requ i r ing no t i ce be fo re deny ing summ ary judg me nt on

grou nds no t r a ised by a pa r ty was de le ted .

SS UBDIV I S IONUBDIV I S ION (( HH ) :) : Recogn i tion o f the au thor i t y to impose o ther app rop r i a te sanc tions was

a d d e d .

OO THERTHER CHANGESCHANGES:: Man y s ty l e chang es were m ade to exp ress mo re c lea r l y the in tended

me an ing o f the pub l ished p ropo sa l .

Ask a Lawyer Online Now

Law.JustAnswer.com

A Lawyer Will Answer in Minutes! Questions Answered Every 9 Seconds.

http://www.web2pdfconvert.com/?ref=PDFhttp://www.web2pdfconvert.com/?ref=PDFhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_57http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/title_VIIhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_55http://www.law.cornell.edu/jureeka/index.php?doc=FRCP&rule=56


9/9

A B O U TA B O U T

L I IL I I

C O N T A C TC O N T A C T

U SU S

A D V E R T I S EA D V E R T I S E

H E R EH E R E

H E L PH E L P T E R M S O FT E R M S O F

U S EU S E

P R I V A C YP R I V A C Y
http://www.law.cornell.edu/http://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/terms/privacy_policyhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/terms/documentationhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/helphttp://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/help_out/sponsorhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/about/contact_ushttp://www.law.cornell.edu/lii/about/about_lii

rule 56. summary judgment

Documents