(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar

Posts: 291
Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 10:40 pm


Postby splittermcsplit88 » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:50 pm

The party opposing summary judgment must "do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to material facts."
What does metaphysical mean? I'm unsure as to what is considered a dispute of material fact.


Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:02 am

Re: FRCP 56

Postby JG7773 » Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:18 pm

From my understanding, if you are not the movant in the SJ situation, you are going to want to bring something to light that shows that the materials used by the movant do not establish the absence of a genuine dispute on the Cause of Action. FRCP 56 (c)(1)(B). You have to do this by pointing to or using parts of evidence that are admissible (depos, ESI, interrogatories, etc.) FRCP 56(c)(1)(A). Keep in mind that "metaphysical" doesn't appear in the actual rule, but in essence you have to use material facts that are available to you versus pulling at strings in the air to prove that there is a material point of contention in the case at bar.


Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 12:41 pm

Re: FRCP 56

Postby Gorki » Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:24 pm

Metaphysical: of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses.

Think of it like this:

"Obviously just looking at this case it is clear there are some issues ripe for a trial." - Metaphysical doubt

"Facts/evidence XYZ create a genuine dispute as to a material fact." - Genuine issue

Basically, the court wants you to make some offer of proof that there is some issue in the case that needs resolution by a factfinder.

nucky thompson

Posts: 284
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:32 pm

Re: FRCP 56

Postby nucky thompson » Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:24 pm

the obligations of the opposing party depend upon who the movant is and what type of SJ they are motioning for. -- *Whether a dispute is “genuine” depends on whether any reasonable fact-finder could decide an issue of material fact for the nonmoving party

D can motion for a "disproving an element" SJ - which would require them to put forth affirmative evidence negating an element of the claim - in this situation, the nonmoving party (P), would have to show there is a genuine dispute related to facts supporting that element - or say that they are unable to put forth the evidence supporting that element for a specified reason 56(d)

D can also motion for an "absence of proof" SJ - in this situation, the D is saying that, after discovery, the P has no proof for the claim. The P has absolutely no duty to rebut this motion until/unless the D "shows" that there is no evidence. Even though D would not have burden of proof at trial, they still have burden of "showing" lack of evidence in this situation to prevent D's abusing SJ to harass P - if D does "show" lack of evidence, P must put forth evidence which shows that there is a genuine dispute related to a material element of the claim.

D or P can also motion for a "proof of the elements" SJ - in this situation, a D can motion for SJ and show that facts supporting his his affirmative defense are not in dispute - such a showing would put burden on P to show that there is evidence putting those facts in dispute. P can motion for SJ and show that facts supporting his claim are not in dispute, D would then have to show otherwise.

Return to “Forum for Law School Students?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 11 guests