Prior to the trilogy, the Supreme Court's decision in Adickes v. Celotex relieved defendants moving for summary judgment of any significant burden of production to establish the absence of a material issue of fact and placed the burden of production on nonmoving plaintiffs to come forward with evidence of facts in dispute. Anderson expanded the discretionary authority given to the district court by recasting summary judgment into the equivalent of a motion for a directed verdict. As a result, summary judgment, a plaintiff's motion prior to the Federal Rules, has become a defendant's motion. It has become a complex proceeding with legal burdens and evidentiary complexities on a par with a trial.
Overuse clogs the courts and results in less justice and less satisfaction for litigants.
Although a plaintiff has equal recourse to summary judgment under Rule 56, the motion has largely become a defendant's weapon. Summary judgment provides the defense bar with a major tactical advantage because it creates leverage over plaintiffs. Whereas a plaintiff maximizes his leverage through the possibility of a trial, a defendant maximizes her position by discouraging and avoiding trial. First, summary judgment creates an additional hurdle for a plaintiff because it forces him to go through a paper minitrial to insure that his case can go forward. This provides a defendant with a preview of the key elements of a plaintiff's case.