Civil Procedure: Summary Judgment and Trial

Civil litigation tends to narrow as it moves from pleadings to discovery and then toward resolution. Two stages do most of the work in separating viable claims from those that cannot be proven: dispositive motions, especially summary judgment under Rule 56, and trial procedure, including jury selection, evidence presentation, and post-trial motions. Understanding how these pieces fit together is essential for evaluating a case realistically and litigating it effectively.

Summary Judgment Under Rule 56

Summary judgment is the principal pretrial mechanism for resolving a case, or parts of a case, when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Its premise is straightforward: if the evidence could not support a reasonable verdict for the nonmoving party on an essential element, then a trial would be unnecessary.

What Rule 56 Requires

Rule 56 frames the inquiry in two linked concepts:

• Material fact: a fact that matters under the substantive law. If the fact would not affect the outcome, it is not material.
• Genuine dispute: a dispute that could be resolved in favor of either side by a reasonable factfinder, based on admissible evidence or evidence that can be presented in admissible form at trial.

The moving party can seek summary judgment on an entire claim or defense, or request partial summary judgment to narrow issues for trial. Partial rulings are common in complex litigation because they streamline what the jury will hear and reduce the risk of confusion.

The Burden and How It Shifts

Rule 56 practice often turns on burdens:

1. The movant identifies the basis for judgment and points to the absence of evidence supporting the opponent’s case or to affirmative evidence that negates an element.
2. The nonmovant must respond with specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. It is not enough to rely on allegations in the pleadings or on speculation.

In practical terms, the nonmoving party needs competent evidence. Courts evaluate the record in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, but they do not credit conclusory statements or unsupported inferences. If the only evidence on a key element is a hunch, summary judgment is likely.

What Counts as Summary Judgment Evidence

Rule 56 allows parties to cite materials in the record such as:

• depositions
• documents and electronically stored information
• affidavits or declarations based on personal knowledge
• admissions and interrogatory answers
• stipulations

A recurring issue is admissibility. Summary judgment evidence must be admissible, or at least capable of being presented in admissible form at trial. For example, a declaration can summarize business records if the records can be authenticated and admitted at trial. Conversely, an affidavit repeating inadmissible hearsay without a plan for admissible presentation is vulnerable to objection.

Strategic Uses and Common Pitfalls

Summary judgment is more than a procedural checkpoint. It shapes settlement leverage, narrows claims, and forces the parties to put their best proof on the table.

Common pitfalls include:

• Failing to develop the record during discovery. Summary judgment is often won or lost months earlier, when a party chooses not to depose a key witness or request critical documents.
• Overreliance on legal argument without evidentiary support. Rule 56 is evidence-driven.
• Ignoring element-by-element proof. If a claim has four elements and one lacks evidence, the claim may fail regardless of how strong the other three appear.

Outcomes: Grant, Deny, or Narrow

Courts may grant summary judgment fully, deny it, or grant it in part. A partial grant often produces a cleaner trial by limiting what remains genuinely disputed. Even when summary judgment is denied, the process clarifies themes, exposes weaknesses, and tees up evidentiary disputes that will recur at trial.

From Pretrial to Trial: Framing the Issues

If a case survives dispositive motions, trial is the forum for resolving factual disputes. Trial procedure is structured to ensure each side has a fair opportunity to present admissible evidence to an impartial factfinder, under the judge’s supervision.

The key transitions include:

• identifying issues for the jury versus issues for the court
• final witness and exhibit lists
• motions that shape what evidence will be permitted
• instructions and verdict form planning

Jury Selection (Voir Dire)

Jury selection is not a formality. It is the process of seating a neutral jury capable of deciding the case based on the evidence and the law.

Goals of Voir Dire

Voir dire seeks to uncover:

• bias, prejudice, or preconceived views that prevent impartiality
• experiences that may strongly influence evaluation of a party or type of claim
• attitudes toward damages, credibility, experts, or specific industries

The court and counsel typically ask questions designed to identify jurors who cannot be fair. The goal is not a “perfect” jury, but a lawful and impartial one.

Challenges for Cause and Peremptory Challenges

Parties can seek removal of a juror in two primary ways:

• Challenges for cause: based on a demonstrated inability to be impartial or to follow the law. There is no fixed numerical limit, but the court decides whether cause exists.
• Peremptory challenges: limited in number and traditionally allowed without stating a reason. However, they cannot be used to discriminate on impermissible grounds. If a discriminatory motive is alleged, the court evaluates the proffered explanation.

Because peremptories are limited, effective voir dire focuses on identifying jurors who present genuine risk and preserving a clear record for the court when a challenge for cause is warranted.

Evidence Presentation at Trial

Trial is governed by the core sequence: opening statements, presentation of evidence, closing arguments, and instructions. The heart of trial is the evidentiary record.

Burdens of Proof and Persuasion

The plaintiff generally bears the burden to prove each element of the claim by the applicable standard. In most civil cases, the standard is preponderance of the evidence, meaning the fact is more likely true than not. Some issues may require a higher standard by substantive law, but the fundamental principle is the same: the party with the burden must produce admissible evidence sufficient to persuade the factfinder.

Direct, Cross, and the Role of Objections

Evidence comes through witnesses and exhibits:

• Direct examination develops the witness’s testimony.
• Cross-examination tests accuracy, credibility, perception, and bias.
• Redirect and recross may clarify issues raised on cross.

Objections enforce evidentiary limits. They can exclude unreliable or unfairly prejudicial material, prevent improper questioning, and preserve issues for appeal. Timing matters: many objections must be made contemporaneously, or they are waived.

Authentication and Foundation

Even relevant evidence can be excluded if it lacks proper foundation. Exhibits typically require authentication, showing that the item is what the proponent claims. Common examples include:

• a witness with knowledge confirming a document’s origin
• a custodian laying the foundation for business records
• testimony connecting photographs to the time and place depicted

Litigators who plan foundation early avoid mid-trial scrambles that can undermine credibility and momentum.

Motions During Trial

Trials frequently involve motions that shape the presentation of evidence and the sufficiency of proof.

• Motions in limine are often decided before testimony begins, addressing anticipated evidentiary disputes.
• Motions for judgment as a matter of law in jury trials argue that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party on an essential issue based on the evidence presented.

These motions reflect the same underlying logic as summary judgment: the law does not require a jury decision when proof is legally insufficient.

Post-Trial Motions and What They Accomplish

After a verdict, litigation may continue through post-trial motions. These motions can challenge the verdict, preserve appellate issues, or seek adjustments to the judgment.

Common post-trial requests include:

• renewed judgment as a matter of law (where applicable), arguing the evidence cannot support the verdict under the governing legal standard
• motion for a new trial, asserting errors that affected substantial rights, such as improper admission or exclusion of evidence, flawed jury instructions, juror misconduct, or a verdict against the weight of the evidence
• motions addressing damages, including requests to correct or reduce an award when permitted by law and procedure

Post-trial motions serve two practical functions. They give the trial court the first opportunity to correct errors, and they sharpen the record for appeal by specifying what went wrong and why it matters.

How Summary Judgment and Trial Procedure Work Together

Rule 56 and trial procedure are not separate worlds. Summary judgment forces parties to confront the evidentiary strength of their positions before trial. Trial, in turn, is the structured test of whatever factual disputes remain. Strong litigation practice treats them as a continuum: build the record with summary judgment in mind, present the case at trial with admissibility and burdens in mind, and preserve issues through objections and post-trial motions.

When used properly, dispositive motions and trial procedure do more than move a docket. They protect fairness, reduce unnecessary trials, and ensure that verdicts rest on evidence that meets legal standards.