⚡ 10-Second Rule
If the paper evidence shows no real factual fight worth a jury, the judge decides now — and doubts go to the side opposing the shortcut.
🧒 ELI-10 Scene
Grandpa Lou referees the great missing-cookie dispute. Priya accuses her cousin Marco. House rule: if the kids truly disagree about what happened, Grandpa holds the full dinner-table hearing. But tonight Priya shows nothing. No crumbs on Marco's shirt. No witness. Just "I know he did it." Marco shows a photo of himself at soccer practice. Grandpa doesn't need the big hearing. There's no real story fight to referee. He rules for Marco now. One more rule: when Grandpa squints at fuzzy evidence, he reads it kindly for the kid facing the shortcut. Grandpa never guesses who sounds more honest — that job belongs to the full hearing.
⚖️ Actual Rule
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides: "The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." A dispute is "genuine" "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party," and a fact is "material" if it could affect the outcome under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Under Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986), a movant who does not bear the burden of proof at trial may discharge its initial burden by "pointing out . . . that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case"; it need not submit evidence negating the claim. The burden then shifts to the nonmovant, who cannot rest on the pleadings but must cite specific record materials showing a genuine dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, draws reasonable inferences in that party's favor, and may not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations. A motion may be filed at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b). [NJ-VARIANT: flagged for future Eli Explains NJ Law module]
ELI-10 translation: no real fight over a fact that matters means no trial — and the judge reads everything kindly for the side that wants the trial.
🔍 Ask These Questions
- Who is the movant, and do they carry the burden of proof at trial? (Is the shortcut-asker the accuser or the accused?)
- If the movant lacks the trial burden, did they point to a missing piece of the other side's case? (Did they show a hole? Showing a hole is enough.)
- Did the nonmovant respond with specific evidence — affidavits, depositions, documents? (Pointing at their own complaint doesn't count.)
- Is the disputed fact material — would it change the outcome under the law? (Fights over side details don't block the shortcut.)
- Is the dispute genuine — could a reasonable jury find for the nonmovant on this evidence? (Could sensible strangers actually side with them?)
- Did the court view everything favorably to the nonmovant, without weighing credibility? (All squinting goes their way; nobody judges who sounds honest on paper.)
⚠️ Bar Trap
Exam language: Examiners write a defendant's summary-judgment motion supported only by a memorandum identifying the plaintiff's lack of evidence on an essential element, and bait you into denying it because the movant "submitted no affidavits negating the claim." Under Celotex, a movant without the trial burden need not negate anything. The companion trap runs the other way: granting summary judgment because the nonmovant's witness "seems unbelievable" — credibility calls are forbidden at this stage.
ELI-10: The shortcut-asker doesn't have to prove the story false. Showing the other side's basket is empty is enough. And the judge never picks whose witness sounds more truthful — juries do that.
🧪 Question
A cyclist sued a delivery company in federal court, alleging that one of its vans forced her off the road and caused her injuries. After the close of discovery, the company moved for summary judgment, filing a brief that identified the absence of any evidence — in the depositions, interrogatory answers, or documents produced — that a company van was on the road in question that day. The company submitted no affidavits of its own. The cyclist's response relied entirely on the allegations of her unverified complaint that "a company van ran me off the road," without citing any discovery materials.
How should the court rule on the motion?
(A) Deny it, because the company failed to submit evidence affirmatively negating the cyclist's claim. (B) Deny it, because the credibility of the cyclist's account is a question for the jury. (C) Grant it, because the company identified an absence of evidence on an essential element and the cyclist failed to cite specific facts showing a genuine dispute. (D) Grant it, because a plaintiff may never rely on a complaint at the summary-judgment stage.
Answer: (C). Under Celotex, the company, which lacks the trial burden, met its initial burden by pointing out the evidentiary hole; the burden shifted, and the cyclist's failure to point to specific record evidence leaves no genuine dispute of material fact.
💡 Why the Wrong Answers Are Wrong
- (A) repeats the pre-Celotex myth; a movant without the trial burden may simply point out the absence of supporting evidence.
- (B) invokes credibility where none is at issue; the problem is missing evidence, not disbelieved evidence.
- (D) overstates the rule; unsworn pleadings cannot oppose summary judgment, but a verified complaint sworn on personal knowledge can function like an affidavit — this complaint simply is not one.
- ELI-10: The misconception is thinking the shortcut-asker must disprove the story. Really they can just show the other side's evidence basket is empty.
