Document: 477 U.S. 317 106 S.Ct. 2548 91 L.Ed.2d 265 CELOTEX CORPORATION, Petitionerv.Myrtle Nell CATRETT, Administratrix of the Estate Louis H. Catrett, Deceased. No. 85-198. Argued April 1, 1986. Decided June 25, Syllabus In September 1980, respondent administratrix filed this wrongful-death action in Federal District Court, alleging that her husband's death 1979 resulted from his exposure to asbestos products manufactured or distributed by defendants, who included petitioner corporation. 1981, a motion for summary judgment, asserting during discovery failed produce any evidence support allegation decedent had been exposed petitioner's products. response, produced documents tending show such exposure, but argued were inadmissible hearsay and thus could not be considered opposition judgment motion. July 1982, court granted because there was no showing products, Court Appeals reversed, holding favor precluded failure its with negate as required Rule 56(e) Civil Procedure decision Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 144, 90 1598, 26 142. Held: 1. The Appeals' position is inconsistent standard set forth 56(c), which provides proper "if pleadings, depositions, answers interrogatories, admissions on file, together affidavits, if any, genuine issue material fact moving party entitled matter law." Pp. 322-326. (a) plain language 56(c) mandates entry after adequate time upon motion, against fails make sufficient establish existence an element essential party's case, will bear burden proof at trial. situation, can "no fact," since complete concerning nonmoving case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. "entitled law" has respect it proof. 322-323. (b) There express implied requirement 56 affidavits similar materials negating opponent's claim. On contrary, refers any," suggests absence requirement, Rules 56(a) provide claimants defending parties may move "with without supporting affidavits." 56(e), relates form use materials, does require always supported initially supra, explained. 323-326. (c) No serious claim made "railroaded" premature until one year commenced conducted discovery. Moreover, potential problem motions adequately dealt under 56(f). 326. 2. questions whether showing, reduced admissible evidence, would carry respondent's trial, should determined first instance. 326-327. 244 U.S.App.D.C. 160, 756 F.2d 181, reversed remanded. REHNQUIST, J., delivered opinion WHITE, MARSHALL, POWELL, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. concurring opinion, post, p. 328. BRENNAN, dissenting BURGER, C.J., BLACKMUN, joined, 329. STEVENS, 337. Leland S. Van Koten, Baltimore, Md., petitioner. Paul March Smith, respondent. Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 United States Columbia Celotex Corporation Catrett latter unable complaint A divided panel Circuit however, favor. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 181 (1985). This view conflicted Third re Japanese Electronic Products, 723 238 (1983), rev'd grounds sub nom. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Zenith Radio 475 574, 1348, 89 538 (1986).1 We certiorari resolve conflict, 474 944, 342, 88 285 (1985), now reverse Circuit. 2 Respondent lawsuit husband, containing 15 named corporations. Respondent's sounded negligence, breach warranty, strict liability. Two defendants challenging Court's personam jurisdiction, remaining 13, including petitioner, judgment. Petitioner's "failed [Celotex] product . proximate cause injuries alleged within jurisdictional limits [the District] Court." particular, noted identify, answering interrogatories specifically requesting information, witnesses testify about decedent's response then three she claimed "demonstrate factual dispute" ever transcript deposition decedent, letter official former employers whom planned call trial witness, insurance company attorney, Chicago 1970-1971. Petitioner, turn, 3 almost two years commencement lawsuit, various defendants. explained granting "there [was] plaintiff defendant Celotex's elsewhere statutory period." App. 217.2 appealed only grant reversed. majority held rendered "fatally defective" "made effort adduce otherwise, motion." U.S.App.D.C., 163, F.2d, 184 (emphasis original). According majority, Procedure,3 159, 1609, 142 (1970), "the opposing bears responding met coming forward issues fact." original; footnote omitted). therefore declined consider argument none have Ibid. judge "[t]he errs supposing seeking must affirmative evidentiary even cases where triable, dispute." Id., 167, 188 (Bork, dissenting). judge, majority's "undermines traditional authority judges meritless cases." 166, 187. 4 think taken Procedure.4 Under our view, "[T]h[e] [for judgment] mirrors directed verdict 50(a). ." Anderson Liberty Lobby, Inc., 242, 250, 2505, 2511, 202 (1986). 5 Of course, initial responsibility informing district basis identifying those portions believes demonstrate fact. But unlike Appeals, we find any" added), requirement. And doubt meaning regard, clearly removed (b), respectively, affidavits" added). import these subsections that, regardless accompanies may, should, so long whatever before demonstrates satisfied. One principal purposes rule isolate dispose factually unsupported claims defenses, interpreted way allows accomplish purpose.5 6 argues, terms, places rebuttal specified kinds provided rule." argument, did "support" improper case. already explained, pursuant like instant one, dispositive issue, properly reliance solely "pleadings, file." Such accompanied rule," requires go beyond pleadings own "depositions, file," designate "specific trial." 7 do mean order avoid Obviously, depose witnesses. permits opposed listed except mere themselves, list normally expect referred. 8 felt itself constrained, (1970). improperly entered restaurant brought 42 U.S.C. § 1983. course said "both commentary background 1963 amendment conclusively intended modify S.Ct., 1609. statement accurate literal sense, fully agree designed making generally 56(c). It also appears us Adickes, denied. quoted above construed fact, Instead, discharged "showing"—that is, pointing out court—that 9 last sentences added, indicated disapprove line allowing resist reference pleadings. While undoubtedly correct concluding reduce party, obvious they adopted add burden. Yet exactly result reasoning produce; effect, facilitate more difficult motions. Nothing themselves result, reasons previously indicated, put rest inference so. 10 Our conclusion bolstered courts are widely acknowledged possess power enter judgments sua sponte, losing notice come evidence. See 167-168, 189 dissenting); 10A C. Wright, A. Miller, M. Kane, Practice 2720, pp. 28-29 (1983). surely defy common sense hold sponte filing disposition ordering it. 11 1981. discovery, Any 56(f),6 denied, hearing continued, opportunity full 12 brief oral devoted much proposition required. address either adequacy question superior knowledge local law better suited than determinations 13 50 authorized showings lack genuine, triable Summary procedure regarded disfavored procedural shortcut, rather integral part whole, "to secure just, speedy inexpensive determination every action." Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 1; see Schwarzer, Judgment Rules: Defining Genuine Issues Material Fact, 99 F.R.D. 465, 467 (1984). Before shift "notice pleading" accomplished Rules, dismiss strike defense tools insufficient defenses isolated prevented going attendant unwarranted consumption public private resources. advent pleading," seldom fulfills function more, place due regard rights persons based tried jury, manner Rule, prior basis. 14 accordingly remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. ordered. 16 concurring. 17 I wrong dispute movant rely like, prove hence dispute. discharge him: enough conclusory assertion 18 need initiate reveal unless order. he respond so; obtain their defeat defendant's task negate, can, suit. 19 Petitioner witness claim, somehow witness' possible testimony raises Tr. Oral Arg. 43, 45. asserts, request Respondent, hand, contend obligated insists revealed Because found unnecessary aspect proceedings. 20 THE CHIEF JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 21 determine satisfied production ground lacked disagree legal analysis. rejects ruling disproving plaintiff's Beyond this, what cannot case.1 clarity unfortunate: routinely decide motions, very likely create confusion. For reason, agreed written separately explain area. However, believe meet 56, respectfully dissent 22 * appropriate "that establishing nonexistence "genuine issue" 2727, 121 (2d ed. 1983) (hereinafter Wright) (citing cases); J. Moore, W. Taggart Wicker, Moore's ¶ 56.15[3] 1985) Moore) cases). also, ante, 323; 328 (WHITE, concurring). distinct components: production, shifts party; ultimate persuasion, remains party. Miller Kane 2727. persuasion2 finds production. 157-161, 1608-10, (1970); Advisory Committee's Notes 28 U.S.C.App., 626. 23 imposed prima facie depends persuasion challenged If credible evidence—using 56(c)—that entitle controverted submit affidavit additional Ibid.; Fed.Rules (f). 24 non-moving satisfy 56's ways. First, negates Second, 130-131; Louis, Doctrine: Critical Analysis, 83 Yale L.J. 745, 750 (1974) Louis). muster useless law. 249, ----, 25 Where adopts second option seeks party—who trial—has mechanics discharging somewhat trickier. Plainly, insufficient. "burden" simply permit converted into tool harassment. 750-751. Rather, confirms, moves affirmatively record. Ante, 323. inadequacy documentary literally record, reviewing admissions, exchanges between Either way, record persuasion. Accordingly, asserts calling attention overlooked ignored event, attempt attacking allegedly satisfies production.3 Thus, disclosed relevant sought testimony. Absent demonstration, denied 56. 27 principles. refused service lunchroom arrested vagrancy policeman left. 1983 claiming refusal subsequent arrest conspiracy police; conspiracy, arresting officer store refused. subsequently moved actual jury draw conspiracy. pointed unsworn employee, both respondent, service. "[i]f present, open light sequence followed, infer circumstances employee 'meeting minds' reached understanding service." U.S., 158, Consequently, error "on record" fulfill burden" demonstrating store. 157-158, 98 1608-1609. sometimes read inappropriate submitted possibility Brief 20, n. 30 apparently asbestos. reading erroneous seek still II 29 say anything different preceding discussion. My disagreement concerns application principles Defendant produce" asbestos.4 170. two-page "Statement Facts Which Issue" three-page "Memorandum Points Authorities" asserted identify sets propounded "totally devoid" id., 171-176. 31 Approximately months earlier, essentially identical Plaintiff responded earlier producing pieces "[a]t least trial," 143: (1) representative another describing exposed, 160; (2) T.R. Hoff, supervisor 162; (3) copy workmen's compensation proceedings, 164. Mr. Hoff 6-7, 27-29. 32 withdrew 167.5 when contain evidence—including witness—supporting Indeed, counsel admitted aware intention filed. 5-7. Celotex' evidence—noting connection motion—and "meet proving 188. 33 facts, Having chosen base free ignore contained. required, matter, attack simple constituted thereby improper.6 34 indistinguishable Adickes. Here, there, contained drawing court's here, production.7 35 36 As points out, 319-320, prevail proved deceased husband "within limits" Columbia.1 showing—albeit possibly form2—that Illinois.3 Although Columbia, stated end argument: "The being 217 offered explanation burden; incongruity context "or elsewhere" language.4 37 Taken palpably erroneous. bench neither validated nor raised complex addressed today. error, therefore, perfectly clear abstract exercise construction, nonetheless affirm reversal narrow ground.5 38 dissent. Since Fifth squarely rejecting here Fontenot Upjohn 780 1190 dissent, argues presented Columbia. 338-339. reversing "narrower ground" showing" STEVENS' incorrect. expressly "in elsewhere." Unlike assume meant said. decided 'no period.' " 162, 3, 183, (1985) words, involved date shares decision. provides: "Supporting shall personal knowledge, affiant competent matters therein. Sworn certified copies papers parts thereof referred attached thereto served therewith. supplemented affidavits. When rule, adverse allegations denials pleading, otherwise specific respond, appropriate, him." days fixed hearing. day serve forthwith interlocutory character, liability alone although amount damages." 752 (1974); Currie, Thoughts Directed Verdicts Judgments, 45 U.Chi.L.Rev. 72, 79 (1977). 56(f) "Should appear present justify opposition, refuse continuance obtained depositions just." unclear supposed remand. WHITE—who fifth vote—plainly reevaluate vacate below implies ask adequately, and, so, exists some clearer expression WHITE's seem controlling. Cf. Marks States, 430 188, 193, 97 990, 993, 51 260 stringent one. Moore 56.15[3], 56-466; 124. unnecessary, 255, (1986), resolved 158-159, 1608-09, determining obliged take account entire setting well prepared 2721, 44; see, e.g., Stepanischen Merchants Despatch Transportation 722 922, 930 (CA1 1983); Higgenbotham Ochsner Foundation Hospital, 607 653, 656 (CA5 1979). Products Antitrust Litigation, source reasonable [nonmoving party's] drawn, 258. Once attacked evidence—if any—the purports upon, rehabilitate papers, explaining why necessary 138-143. ways, if, responds, determines persuading See, First National Bank Arizona Cities Service 391 253, 289, 1575, 1592, 569 (1968). STEVENS He contends affirmed "narrow "palpably erroneous" Post, 339 (dissenting). replies 320, my really For, contrary deciding involve "abstract construction." (STEVENS, To governing movant's straightforward established, new construction all; entails applying established particular choice "palpable erro[r]" "abstract" elements tort given decision, granted, briefed preferable because, plaintiff. answered only, obviously relied acquired interrogatories. WHITE agrees [plaintiff] remand "[b]ecause case." 328-329 (concurring). intent 6-7. circumstances, then, remanding waste time. Motion Judgment, 170 ("Defendant Corporation, 56(b) Order designed, Court") added); Memorandum Authorities Support 175 (Plaintiff "must link illness himself. totally devoid confines Transcript Argument 211 ("Our identification used exposed") cf. 324 ("We judgment"). 160 (letter Aetna Life Insurance Co.) (referring "asbestos came contact while working Anning-Johnson Company" noting "manufacturer product" purchased Celotex); 162 (confirming worked supervised installation ultimately purchased); 164, 164c (deposition Catrett) (description work Chicago"). 185, ("[T]he discussion actually spoke venue. phrase 'or elsewhere,' appearing discussion, judge's close conceivably proper"). 2, supra. "superior law," 327, bewildering decided. Bishop Wood, 426 341, 345-347, 96 2074, 2077-2079, 48 684 (1976). affirmance available reveal, increasing tendency adopt presumption reversal. New York P.J. Video, 868, 884, 1610, 1619, 871 (1986) (MARSHALL, Icicle Seafoods, Worthington, 709, 715, 1527, 1530, 739 City Los Angeles Heller, 796, 800, 1571, 1573, 806 Pennsylvania Goldhammer, 28, 31, 353, 183 efficient judicial administration state federal courts, precisely opposite.

Category: 8