477 U.S. 317 (1986)
In September 1980 respondent Catrett, as administratrix of her husband's estate, commenced a wrongful-death action in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia against fifteen named corporations including petitioner Celotex Corporation.1
The complaint alleged that her husband Louis H. Catrett died in 1979 from exposure to asbestos products manufactured or distributed by the defendants.2 The action was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on diversity grounds.3
After extensive discovery Celotex filed a motion for summary judgment in September 1981 asserting that respondent had failed to produce any evidence that the decedent had been exposed to Celotex asbestos products.4 In response respondent produced a transcript of the decedent's deposition taken in a separate California proceeding, a letter from an official of one of Celotex's former insurance companies, and a letter from one of Celotex's customers.5
In July 1982 the District Court granted summary judgment to Celotex on the ground that respondent had made no showing of exposure to Celotex products in the District of Columbia or elsewhere within the statutory period.6 Respondent appealed only that ruling.7
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, holding that Celotex had failed to meet its initial burden because it made no effort to adduce affirmative evidence supporting its motion.8 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuits concerning the proper standard under Rule 56.9
Whether a party moving for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 must support its motion with affirmative evidence negating the nonmoving party's claim?10
Rule 56(c) provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.11 The plain language of the Rule mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.12 The moving party is therefore not required to negate the opponent's claim; rather, the burden on the moving party may be discharged by showing that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.13
No. Celotex pointed to the absence of evidence in the record to support the respondent's claim that her husband had been exposed to its products.14 The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the petitioner was required to support its summary judgment motion with evidence negating the respondent's claim.15
The moving party is not required to support its summary judgment motion with affirmative evidence negating the nonmoving party's claim.16
Related opinions on this issue
Justice White agreed that the Court of Appeals was wrong in holding that the moving defendant must always support his motion with evidence which negates the plaintiff's claim.17 He also agreed that if the plaintiff bears the burden of proof at trial on an issue, the defendant need not produce evidence negating that issue to prevail on summary judgment.18 But he did not agree that the defendant may prevail simply by pointing to the absence of evidence in the record to support the plaintiff's claim.19
He believed the defendant is required to show that the plaintiff has failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of an essential element of the plaintiff's case.20 In this case, however, the plaintiff did not produce any evidence that would create a genuine issue of material fact as to exposure.21 Therefore, he concurred in the judgment.22
Joined by Chief Justice Burger And Justice Blackmun
Justice Brennan dissented.23 He argued that the Court's opinion was a significant departure from the law of summary judgment.24 Rule 56 requires the moving party to support its motion with affidavits or other materials that establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.25
The moving party must make an affirmative showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.26 A mere pointing out that the nonmoving party has failed to produce evidence is insufficient.27 In this case Celotex made no affirmative showing that the respondent could not prove exposure at trial.28
It simply argued that the respondent had not yet produced any evidence of exposure.29 That is not enough to shift the burden to the respondent under Rule 56.30
Justice Stevens dissented.31 He argued that petitioner's motion for summary judgment was based on the proposition that respondent could not prevail unless she proved exposure to petitioner's products within the jurisdictional limits of the District of Columbia.32 Respondent made an adequate showing that her husband had been exposed to petitioner's product in Illinois.33
The District Court stated at the end of the argument that there was no showing of exposure in the District of Columbia or elsewhere within the statutory period.34 Taken in the context of the motion for summary judgment on the basis of no exposure in the District of Columbia, the District Court's decision to grant summary judgment was palpably erroneous.35
Whether the nonmoving party must produce evidence in admissible form to oppose a properly supported motion for summary judgment?36
A party opposing summary judgment need not produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial to avoid summary judgment.37 Rule 56(e) permits a proper summary judgment motion to be opposed by any of the kinds of evidentiary materials listed in Rule 56(c), except the mere pleadings themselves.38
No. The respondent produced a transcript of a deposition and letters that the petitioner argued were inadmissible hearsay.39 The Court held that the nonmoving party need not produce evidence in admissible form to oppose summary judgment.40 The adequacy of the showing must still be evaluated under the substantive law.41 In this case the evidence failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact.42
The nonmoving party need not produce evidence in admissible form to oppose a properly supported motion for summary judgment.43
Whether the adequacy of the nonmoving party's evidentiary showing in opposition to summary judgment is evaluated in light of the substantive evidentiary burden at trial?44
The court must view the evidence presented through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden.45 A scintilla of evidence in support of the nonmoving party's position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the nonmoving party.46 The inquiry is whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.47
Yes. The respondent's showing in opposition to the motion must be evaluated in light of the evidentiary burden imposed by the substantive law governing the wrongful death claim.48 Under that standard the respondent would have to prove her case by a preponderance of the evidence.49 The only evidence offered was inadmissible hearsay and otherwise failed to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.50
The adequacy of the nonmoving party's evidentiary showing in opposition to summary judgment is evaluated in light of the substantive evidentiary burden at trial.51