Summary Judgment
Most cases do not proceed to trial. Instead, for cases that proceed through discovery, a judge may decide that there is no need to hear witness testimony because the facts, even when cast in the light most favorable to one side, require judgment in favor of the other. A party in the United States may ask a judge to make this decision by moving for summary judgment.
The rules for summary judgment motions vary between federal and state court, and between state courts, but some general principles remain the same.
Why should you read this post about summary judgment motions?
You would prefer a written document on the subject over hearing live witnesses describe summary judgment to you.
You like the letter “m” and are intrigued by the fact “summary judgment motions” has four m’s.
You’re so concerned that there are a lot of movies about trials, but so few about summary judgment motions that are decided on the papers, that you are consuming all of the summary judgment media that you can.
Image Credit. This courtroom is empty because the trial was unnecessary thanks to a summary judgment motion.
When Summary Judgment is Appropriate
There are two situations when summary judgment is appropriate.
In the first, the parties agree about the key facts, but disagree about how the law applies to it. This is true in civil rights cases where there is no dispute about what the challenged law is and what its effects are, but the only dispute is whether the constitution permits it. For example, in Rolando v. Fox, the ACLU and the State of Montana both agreed that the state had a law prohibiting same-sex marriage. But they disagreed about whether the constitution permitted the law. The court did not need a trial to decide the facts, so it could proceed straight to the legal issues.
The second situation occurs more frequently. There, one party argues that the other party has failed to submit a fact that a reasonable fact finder could consider to support their case. Here, the opposing party may claim that there is a factual dispute, but the debate between the parties concerns whether the facts the opposing party are enough to persuade a fact finder or legally relevant to the case. For example, in one personal injury case, the defendant argued no trial was necessary because the plaintiff admitted she did not know how she fell. The plaintiff submitted a sworn statement saying the opposite, but the court held that was insufficient because the statement was not enough evidence to win the case since she had already testified that she did not know how she fell and there was no other evidence in the record to blame the defendant.
A motion for summary judgment is rarely about the weight of the evidence, but instead more often about whether the evidence is relevant to the case. If a defendant can show that the plaintiff’s evidence legally is irrelevant to their claims, then they may win summary judgment. And if a plaintiff can show that the defendant’s evidence is irrelevant to their liability, then the plaintiff may win summary judgment. But if there is conflicting evidence, even if it is weak, the court usually considers it in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
Statements of Undisputed Facts
Many court rules require a party who moves for summary judgment to submit a statement of undisputed facts. An example is Local Rule 56.1 in the Northern District of Illinois. This statement is usually separate from the memorandum of law and contains numbered paragraphs that state each fact that the movant states is not in dispute and therefore does not require a trial. After each statement, the movant should cite evidence to support the claim. And when drafting this statement, the movant should make sure that there is not evidence that disputes the claim.
In opposition, an adversary may prepare a counter-statement that lists each of the same facts and responds with evidence that disputes the fact or concedes facts that are not relevant to the claims. The purpose of the counter-statement is not to show that the opponent’s facts are correct, but only to show that there is competing evidence that requires a trial to decide the facts. And in some situations, the movant may submit a response, explaining why that evidence does not rebut their own.
How to Oppose a Summary Judgment Motion
A summary judgment motion is a challenging aspect of many litigations. If the party loses, it may not have its day in court. And it has to fight against a court’s desire to kick a case off of its docket and free itself of the burden of time and energy to conduct a trial.
But there are two main strategies to prevailing on summary judgment.
The first is to explain that there are factual issues in dispute that require a trial. In addition to the counter-statement of material facts, a non-moving party may explain in its memorandum of law and in supporting sworn statements that there is evidence that a judge or jury may consider that, if accepted, would allow them to win at trial. The purpose of the motion is not to convince the judge to believe the evidence, but merely to establish that it exists and is plausible enough to justify a trial.
The second is to dispute the legal principles cited by the moving party to show that its facts alone are insufficient for relief. For example, a plaintiff may argue that its contract alone entitles it to a judgment for money and it may cite a law to support that the contract alone wins the day. But the defendant may respond that the plaintiff incorrectly cited the law and, to prevail, the plaintiff must also prove additional facts that it had not yet proved. If the court agrees with the defendant’s argument, then the plaintiff’s facts alone will be insufficient for summary judgment, even if unchallenged.
Parties also frequently “cross-move” for summary judgment. In that situation, the parties may agree that there are no key facts in dispute, but contend that the law as applied to those facts should entitle each to judgment in their favor.