Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure outlines the process for what might be called the lightning strike of the judicial process—that single motion that wins a case right then and there without even going to trial.
What is this legal thunderbolt and how does it play out in court?
When the evidence that will be presented at trial is gathered, it may be apparent to 1 side that their case is legally certain to win, 100 percent certain.
This happens when there are no material facts that any reasonable person could dispute and that those material facts are significant enough to legally require a certain side to win.
The most basic example is a personal injury case of a car accident with video of one person clearly running a red light. Another example that happens more frequently is a contract dispute can be settled by unambiguous language within the document.
When a case is docketed by the courts, the scheduling order includes a date by which any motion for summary judgment must be filed. The side filing the motion—“the movant,” in legal parlance—submits both the motion, which is the request and the memorandum, and the rationale for the motion.
The opposing party is then giving a fixed amount of time—it varies by state, but 3 weeks is common—to respond with their own motion for a ruling in their favor, accompanied by their own memorandum.
The movant has a high legal bar to clear. They must establish that no real dispute over the relevant facts cited exist. It’s important to note here that the judge may not determine the credibility of either side.
Hence, even if the movant—and the judge for that matter—believes the dispute over the relevant facts to be tenuous, that is for a jury to decide. A motion for summary judgment must be predicated on facts where absolutely no reasonable dispute exists—like our example of the driver running a red light and getting caught on video.
Furthermore, when a judge considers the motion for summary judgment, they must presume that all other facts not cited in the motion would go in favor of the opposition. That is, the facts in the motion alone must be sufficient to win the case and that there is no legal dispute over that.
So reasonable dispute alone is enough for the motion to fail. It’s important to emphasize the term “reasonable.” Our reckless driver can’t simply dispute the obvious video evidence in front of everyone. They would have to cite some valid reason the video was fake or bring in some other relevant fact that would change the context of what was being viewed.
In cases like these, partial summary judgments are more likely. The judge in this hypothetical car accident case might grant the motion for summary judgment with regard to liability, but leave open the question of damages.
Given the high standards required to win a motion for summary judgment, it’s no surprise that most are denied. However, they are a valuable tool for courts to more quickly dispose of cases where the outcome is clear.