About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 Joe Cecil & George Cort, Initial Report on Summary Judgment Practice across Districts with Variations in Local Rules 1 (2007)

handle is hein.congcourts/inirejp0001 and id is 1 raw text is: THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER THURGOOD MARSHALL FEDERAL JUDICIARY BUILDING ONE COLUMBUS CIRCLE, N.E. WASHINGTON, DC 20002-8003 Joe Cecil TEL 202-502-4084 Division of Research FAX 202-502-4199 EMAIL: ceclcfic gov November 2, 2007 Memorandum To: Judge Michael Baylson From: Joe Cecil and George Cort Subject: Initial Report on Summary Judgment Practice Across Districts with Variations in Local Rules The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules asked the Federal Judicial Center to examine summary judgment practice across federal district courts as a means of assessing the potential impact of the proposed amendments to Rule 56. Those proposed amendments will, among other things, require the movant to state in separately numbered paragraphs only those material facts that the movant asserts are not genuinely in dispute and entitle the movant to judgment as a matter of law, and require the respondent to address each one of those facts in similarly numbered paragraphs. We sorted each federal district court into one of three groups based the districts' local rules governing summary judgment, relying on the analysis of local rules by Jeffrey Barr and James Ishida to guide this classification The first group consisted of twenty federal districts that have local rules with summary judgment requirements similar to those of the proposed amendment. In general, local rules in these districts require the moving party to include a statement of undisputed facts with its motion for summary judgment, and require the non-moving party to respond to the movant's statement, fact by fact. We assumed that summary judgment practice in these districts follows a pattern that will become common in other federal districts if the proposed amendments are adopted. The second group consisted of thirty-six federal district courts with local rules that require the moving party to include a statement of undisputed facts, but do not require the respondent to address each fact. We believe that summary judgment practice in these 1 Memorandum to Judge Michael Baylson from Jeffrey Barr and James Ishida, Survey of District Court Local Summary Judgment Rules (March 21, 2007).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most