Also known as: forms that would be admissible · admissible form
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A standard governing summary judgment evidence that allows a party to object when materials cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be reduced to admissible evidence at trial. The rule requires only that the content be capable of presentation in admissible form through authentication, testimony, or other means rather than demanding trial-ready form at the motion stage.
CloudNest moved for summary judgment in its misappropriation suit against Rita and relied on anonymous forum screenshots purporting to show her admissions. Rita objected that the posts lacked authentication and could never overcome hearsay barriers. The court sustained the objection and disregarded the materials because CloudNest identified no witness or process that could convert them into admissible evidence at trial.
Celotex moved for summary judgment in the asbestos case and challenged Mrs. Catrett's opposition materials. She identified a witness who could testify at trial to the decedent's exposure even though the supporting letter itself was not yet sworn. The court held that the evidence need not already be in admissible form so long as it could be presented through live testimony.
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. The complaint alleged that her husband Louis H. Catrett died in 1979 from exposure to asbestos products manufactured or distributed by the defendants. The action was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on diversity grounds. 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. 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. 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. Respondent appealed only that ruling. 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. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuits concerning the proper standard under Rule 56.
View caseNo. Materials need only be capable of being presented in admissible form at trial through authentication or testimony. The rule expressly permits objections when no such path exists.
Supporting sources
The nonmovant may show that the movant's cited materials cannot be presented in admissible form or do not establish the absence of a genuine dispute. If successful, the movant fails to carry its burden and the motion is denied.
Supporting sources
The court must resolve whether the cited material can be reduced to admissible evidence. If it cannot, the court disregards that material when deciding whether a genuine dispute exists.
Supporting sources
…burden imposed by the substantive law governing the claim. A party opposing summary judgment need not produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial in order to avoid summary judgment. 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…