New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Summary Judgment — Some Thoughts About the Proposed Amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56

Download PDF

Following up on yesterday’s posting discussing the proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(2), my thoughts about the Advisory Committee's proposed amendments to Rule 56 (summary judgment) follow. The text of the proposal is available at our posting of July 4, 2008:

The version going out for public comments is a distinct improvement over the draft under consideration by the Advisory Committee in January 2008, although I still find statements of not genuinely disputable (or indisputable) facts to be an expensive sideshow. Assuming that mine is the minority view, four practical suggestions: (1) Rule 56(c)(3) needs a default; (2) Rule 56(c)(3) should be extended to the initial statements of indisputable fact, not just responses to statements; (3) it is time to retire Rule 56(h), and (4) Rule 56(f) need not be renumbered.

Acceptance/Dispute for Purposes of the Motion (56(c)(3)). What if a party says nothing about whether it is accepting or disputing a fact for all purposes as opposed to doing so only for purposes of the motion? What’s the consequence? There’s no default. The rule needs one, and the default should be that admissions or denials are made solely for purposes of the motion. There is no harm in limiting the admission or denial to the motion; there may be harm in extending it to the whole case. A point that a party may be willing to concede or is forced to fight in one constellation of claims, to make one argument before the Court on summary judgment, may be prejudicial before a jury or otherwise harmful under the post-summary judgment array of claims and relevant facts.

Statements of Indisputable Fact Should Also be for Purposes of the Motion (56(c)(3)). Statements of indisputable fact raise the same problem. Assume that the defendant moves for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. Its recitation of the notoriety of its misconduct is important for the motion. If the motion is lost, those statements should not become admissions for purposes of a jury trial. Lawyers will try to draft statements of indisputable fact carefully but no one is perfect. Particularly in long statements (which the Rule requires and the Note disdains), an "allegedly" may be implicit but not contained in every sentence that could be tendered before a jury. This should not be a game of "gotcha."

56(h) Should Go. I agree that sanctions should be discretionary but, as rewritten, the Rule appears to contemplate that some bad faith or dilatory affidavits may be OK. I know that isn’t intended, but 56(h) is a relic. The area is covered by Rule 11. I would just retire it.

Unnecessary Renumbering. There is no convincing reason why 56(f) has to be renumbered 56(d). The "internal logic" argument isn’t terribly strong there, and it holds no appeal for our clients who pay for the extra LEXIS or Westlaw searches to pick up both old case law and new. I am less bothered by the move of 56(c) to 56(a). I see the problem of keeping it as subdivision (c) in light of the other changes in the rule, and it is.

Even when I take issue with it, the work product of the Rules Committees is enormously impressive. If we could only arrange for legislation to go through the rulemaking process.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice