#11531 - Managerial Judging And Summary Judgment - Civil Procedure

MANAGERIAL JUDGING AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Managerial Judging and Pretrial Disposition

1. Managerial Judging

About 12% of federal cases went to trial in 1960, today less than 2%. Various pre-trial devices used to increase judicial efficiency, and settlement encouraged. 1993 amendments included Rule 16, which gives judge power for scheduling conferences, some control over discovery, pleadings, adding parties, referring to magistrates, ordering separate trials of particular issues or claims,

Strandel—Summary Jury Trial

Backlogged district court tried to force parties to go through a preliminary non-binding jury trial to promote settlement. Tobin refused, because he didn’t want his protected work privilege to come out at pre-trial. Court of Appeals says Rule 16 does not allow courts to compel parties to participate in summary jury trials. Pretrial conferences were intended to foster settlement, but not to require than an unwilling litigant be sidetracked from the normal course of litigation, or that the judge would impose settlement negotiations on unwilling litigants.

2. Summary Judgment

Rule 56: either party may move for summary judgment any time until 30 days after close of discovery. Other party must respond within 21 days. Judgment granted if pleadings, discovery and disclosure, any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. You can have summary judgment about only one part of the case. For example, liability but not damages.

Essentially, the movant must establish that no reasonable fact finder could rule for his opponent, such that the trial judge would be obliged to enter summary judgment in favor of the movant as a matter of law.

56(e): If moving party meets its burden of production, then nonmoving party must respond laying out specific facts that create a genuine issue for trial.

E&E says: its appropriate when there are no disputed issues of material fact to be tried, so moving party is entitled to judgment on the undisputed facts. Summary judgment motion tests whether the plaintiff has sufficient evidence on the challenged element to make a trial necessary.

Burden of Production: shifts to non-movant once the movant has shown that there is no issue of material fact.

Burden of Persuasion: Always stays with the moving party

OLD CASE Adickes v Kress (1970)

Before the trilogy, no burden shifting. SCOTUS holds that burden on summary judgment motion is on movant to show absence of genuine issue of material fact.

Court reverses summary judgment on whether Kress conspired w/ Hattiesburg police.

Where the evidence in support of the motion does not establish the absence of a genuine issue, summary judgment must be denied even if no opposing evidence is presented.

The disputed fact (of police officer’s presence) is one on which the case will turn. Kress did not carry its burden because of its failure to foreclose the possibility that there was a policeman in the Kress store. (p. 638).

Adickes creates a heavy burden for showing no issue of material fact (similar to Conley)

OLD CASE Catrett v. Johns-Mansville Sales Corp (1985)

• Pre-trilogy approach, asbestos case.

• “In this case Celotex proffered nothing. It advanced only the naked allegation that the plaintiff had not come forward in discovery with evidence to support her allegations of the decedent's exposure to the defendant's product. Under settled rules, that barebones approach will not do. Mrs. Catrett was simply not required, given this state of the record, to offer any evidence in response.”

Celotex v Catrett (1986)

• Makes it easier to meet burden of production and get summary judgment; establishes burden-shifting

• Record showed that plaintiff had no proof of decedent’s asbestos exposure. If D demonstrates that there’s no evidence in the record, and P does not produce evidence to prove exposure, then summary judgment for D, and he need not provide any evidence to prove lack of exposure.

• The burden on the moving party may be discharged by “showing” –that is, pointing out to the district court—that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case; movant need not provide evidence negating other party’s claim.

Rule 56 designed not just to protect plaintiff, but also for the rights of people opposing such claims to demonstrate that the claims have no factual basis.

Matsushita v Zenith (1986)

Makes it easier for...