Â鶹ÉçÇø

Summary judgment is a core tenet of the American judicial process. Lawyers for either party can file a motion before trial begins for summary judgment, and the presiding judge either grants or denies the request. If granted, the issue is resolved. If denied, the case proceeds to trial.

One common belief is that lawyers use summary judgment to forego a prolonged trial and ultimately save their clients both time and money. While this may be true, other factors and motivations exist as well. For example, some attorneys may use this pre-trial procedural device to their advantage by forcing opposing counsel to reveal their strategy and evidence before trial begins, even though they expect their motion to be denied.

In this video, Sanne H. Knudsen, the Stimson Bullitt Endowed Professor of Environmental Law, explains what summary judgment is, when it is useful, why a client might be interested in pursuing it and two common myths.

Read the Transcript

Sanne Knudsen (SK): My name is Sanne Knudsen. I am the Stimson Bullitt Endowed Professor of Environmental Law here at the University of Washington.

Â鶹ÉçÇø Law: What is summary judgment and when is it useful?

SK: It's a motion that either party can file if they think a case does not need to go to trial. Under the rules of federal civil procedure, which govern cases in federal court, a judge may grant a summary judgment motion when there are no genuine issues of material fact. Summary Judgment is useful in three basic scenarios.

First, where the evidence is so lopsided that there's only one reasonable version of the facts.

Second, where a party has such holes in their evidentiary case that they won't be able to prove their case at trial. For example, let's say a plaintiff brings a products liability claim alleging that exposure to the defendant's product caused cancer, but after discovery they've not been able to uncover any documents or other evidence showing that they were actually exposed to the defendant's products at levels that could even theoretically cause cancer. In that case, the plaintiff has a serious hole in their case on causation, and summary judgment in favor of the defendant might be appropriate.

Third, summary judgment is useful when the parties agree on the facts but disagree on whether the law provides relief. So, let's say that our plaintiff had enough evidence to show the defendant's product caused her harm, but let's say the defendant put a label on their product warning that it could cause cancer. The parties might agree on the facts but argue over whether the law allows recovery when the defendant put a clear warning label on its product.

Â鶹ÉçÇø Law: Why might a party involved in a lawsuit want to seek summary judgment?

SK: Well, in theory, summary judgment helps save the time and money of preparing for and going to trial. In reality, this might be more of a myth, but we can come back to that. Consider that not all litigators are skilled trial attorneys, so resolving a case on summary judgment might be especially preferable for those who are not as confident in putting on witnesses, formally introducing evidence at trial or arguing to a jury. In addition, if a case has multiple claims, say breach of contract and negligence, summary judgment can be a way to resolve some of the weaker claims and narrow the scope of the trial. This can focus the trial and make it simpler. And then lastly, I'll say that some litigators say that seeking summary judgment provides a tactical advantage by forcing the opposing party to tip their hand about their theory of the case and reveal the evidence that they plan to rely on at trial.

Â鶹ÉçÇø Law: Are there any common myths about summary judgment?

SK: Summary judgment does not mean that the judge simply decides a case rather than letting it go to trial. In ruling on a summary judgment motion, all evidentiary inferences and credibility determinations are to be made in favor of the nonmoving party. And by nonmoving party, I mean the party that is not trying to cut the litigation short. The judge's function on summary judgment is not to weigh the evidence at all, but to view it in the light most favorable to this nonmoving party because that's the party that would suffer if the summary judgment motion was granted. The second myth that I think we might discuss connects to something I said earlier about summary judgment having the benefit of avoiding the time and expense of going to trial. The prospect of winning a case on summary judgment might actually increase litigation costs by incentivizing parties to engage in a more protracted discovery for the purposes of buttoning down a case for summary judgment.