Opinion ID: 2982194
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of Summary Judgment Standards

Text: The district court orally disposed of this entire case with a record of over a thousand pages. We have previously observed that “[t]his reviewing court, and more importantly, the parties, are much better served when, as is the custom in this circuit, the district court prepares a written opinion explaining its ruling and the reasoning, factual and legal, in support, especially when the ruling disposes of the case in a final judgment.” Peck v. Bridgeport Machs., Inc., 237 -4- Case No. 13-1265 Khamati v. Secretary of the Department of the Treasury F.3d 614, 617 (6th Cir. 2001). Khamati assigns two general claims of error to the district court’s rulings, which stem from problems attendant with granting summary judgment from the bench without presenting any accompanying written findings. See, e.g., Terry Bar Sales Agency, Inc. v. All-Lock Co., Inc., 96 F.3d 174, 178 (6th Cir. 1996). During the course of the summary judgment hearing, the district court frequently requested that Khamati point to specific pages in the dense record that supported the pertinent elements of each claim. These requests followed the district court’s frankness in expressing that it failed to review the entire record prior to the hearing, stating, “I have to admit candidly that I have not read the three, six, eight inches of exhibits, nor I hope has my law clerk.” Khamati first argues that this statement illustrates that the court failed to review all the evidence she presented, which in turn prevented a finding that genuine disputes existed. However, the court’s acknowledgement that it failed to review the record prior to the hearing alone does not render its summary judgment grant erroneous. The district court is not required to search the entire record to find that genuine disputes of material fact exist. Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479-80 (6th Cir. 1989). In fact, the federal rules squarely place this burden on the party seeking to prove the existence of the disputed fact, requiring that “[a] party asserting that a fact . . . is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by . . . citing to particular parts of materials in the record.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1)(A). Here, Khamati cited to the record only twice in her analysis section of her response brief. One of these cites instructed, “See exhibits.” Khamati’s perfunctory citations therefore temper the effects of the district court’s cursory treatment of the record. Further, statements made during the hearing indicate that the district court had reviewed Khamati’s brief responding to the motion for summary judgment and some of the record. The court permitted, and even -5- Case No. 13-1265 Khamati v. Secretary of the Department of the Treasury encouraged, Khamati to present any evidence to support her claims, explaining that she could have as much time as necessary to find the citations to the record. In sum, the district court’s revelation that it did not review the entire record did not prevent it from finding that factual disputes existed and does not constitute reversible error. Second, Khamati argues that the district court failed to view the facts and draw inferences in her favor. Matsushita Electric Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587-88. She highlights one statement the district court made at the summary judgment hearing in support. In analyzing the retaliation claim, the district court stated that the adverse action element of her retaliation claim “sounds like it might be retaliation for being a stern task master.” This statement does not prove that the district court refused to view the facts favorably to Khamati, but rather shows the district court’s attempt to summarize the evidence Khamati presented to the court. At the heart of Khamati’s general challenges to the district court’s review of her case is her contention that it did not appropriately examine and rely on the record in reaching its conclusions. The other three issues presented for appeal envelop this argument and are addressed in the sections that follow.