Must a defendant moving for summary judgment provide affirmative evidence to negate the plaintiff's claim, even when the plaintiff bears the burden of proof at trial?

Myrtle Nell Catrett, acting as administratrix of her deceased husband's estate, initiated a wrongful death lawsuit against Celotex Corporation and other defendants in September 1980. The suit alleged that her husband's death in 1979 was caused by exposure to asbestos products manufactured or distributed by the defendants. In September 1981, Celotex filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that Catrett had not produced evidence of her husband's exposure to Celotex's products. Catrett responded by submitting three documents suggesting such exposure.

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Celotex. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that Celotex's failure to support its motion with evidence negating exposure prevented the granting of summary judgment. This reversal set the stage for further legal proceedings to determine the merits of Catrett's claims against Celotex and the other defendants.

Catrett initially filed suit against Celotex in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Celotex, dismissing Catrett's claim. Catrett then appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's ruling, effectively reinstating Catrett's case. Following this reversal, Celotex petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address a conflict between the D.C. Circuit's decision and a contrary ruling from the Third Circuit on a similar issue.

(Rehnquist, J.)

No. A defendant moving for summary judgment is not required to provide affirmative evidence to negate the plaintiff's claim when the plaintiff bears the burden of proof at trial. The burden on the moving party may be discharged by simply pointing out to the court that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case. This interpretation aligns with the purpose of summary judgment as an integral part of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, designed to secure just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of actions. Rule 56 does not mandate that the moving party support its motion with affidavits or similar materials negating the opponent's claim. Instead, the moving party can meet its burden by demonstrating the lack of evidence supporting the nonmoving party's case. This approach promotes efficiency in the judicial process by allowing courts to dispose of meritless claims without full trials. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to establish the existence of genuine issues of material fact for trial. This interpretation balances the rights of both parties, ensuring that plaintiffs with valid claims can proceed to trial while allowing defendants to efficiently challenge claims lacking evidentiary support. The summary judgment procedure, when properly applied, serves as a crucial tool for filtering out unsubstantiated claims and focusing judicial resources on genuine disputes of material fact.

Concurrence (White, J.) The movant must still discharge the burden placed upon him by the Rules and cannot simply make a conclusory assertion that the plaintiff has no evidence. This clarification is crucial to ensure that summary judgment motions are not abused and that the non-moving party's rights are protected. The burden remains on the moving party to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, even if they are not required to negate the opponent's claim entirely.

Dissent (Brennan, J.) Celotex failed to discharge its initial burden of production under Rule 56 by ignoring supporting evidence already in the record. This oversight undermines the integrity of the summary judgment process. The majority's interpretation of Rule 56 risks unfairly disadvantaging plaintiffs and potentially denying them their day in court. The Court should have required a more rigorous showing from the moving party before shifting the burden to the non-moving party.

Dissent (Stevens, J.) The case should be affirmed on the narrower ground that the District Court's decision was palpably erroneous in the context of the original motion. This approach would have resolved the immediate dispute without unnecessarily broadening the scope of summary judgment practice. The majority's decision may have far-reaching consequences that could alter the balance of power between plaintiffs and defendants in civil litigation, potentially limiting access to justice.