## Facts

- Myrtle Nell Catrett, as administratrix of Louis H. Catrett’s estate, brought a wrongful-death action alleging Louis Catrett died from exposure to asbestos-containing products sold or distributed by multiple defendants, including Celotex.
- The claims sounded in negligence, breach of warranty, and strict liability.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Catrett lacked evidence that Louis Catrett had been exposed to any particular defendant’s asbestos products.
- In opposing summary judgment, Catrett submitted: (1) Louis Catrett’s deposition from another proceeding, (2) a letter from a former employer official, and (3) a letter from an insurance company to her attorney, offered to support product-exposure inferences.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Celotex and others for lack of proof of exposure.
- The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit’s earlier approach to Rule 56 and remanded for an assessment of whether Catrett’s opposition materials were sufficient to meet her burden on an essential element (exposure) under the clarified summary-judgment standard.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Rule 56 as clarified by the Supreme Court, Catrett’s opposition materials were sufficient for a reasonable jury to find exposure to Celotex’s asbestos products.
2. Whether a nonmovant may defeat summary judgment by producing materials that, viewed favorably to the nonmovant and assuming admissible form at trial, would be sufficient to carry the nonmovant’s burden of proof on an essential element.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit applied the post-*Celotex* summary-judgment framework on remand, treating exposure to a particular defendant’s product as an essential element requiring evidentiary support.
- The court stated the governing standard: a nonmovant’s showing is sufficient to avoid summary judgment if it would be adequate to carry the nonmovant’s burden of proof at trial.
- The court evaluated whether Catrett’s submitted materials, considered in the light most favorable to her and with admissibility defects potentially curable at trial, could permit a reasonable inference of exposure attributable to Celotex.
- Judge Bork dissented in part, arguing that identifying potential sources of proof without concrete evidence of causation/exposure did not satisfy Rule 56’s requirement of specific facts.

## Legal Principles

- A summary-judgment movant may obtain judgment by showing the absence of evidence supporting an essential element on which the nonmovant bears the burden of proof at trial.
- To defeat summary judgment, the nonmovant must come forward with evidence that would be sufficient, if credited, to allow a reasonable jury to find for the nonmovant on each essential element.
- Product identification/exposure to the specific defendant’s product is an essential element in asbestos-related claims against that defendant; evidence of asbestos exposure in general is insufficient.
- In assessing sufficiency at summary judgment, the court considers whether the nonmovant’s materials could be presented in admissible form at trial and whether they support more than speculation.

## Conclusion

On remand, the D.C. Circuit operationalized the Supreme Court’s Rule 56 standard by requiring the plaintiff, opposing summary judgment, to produce evidence that could satisfy her trial burden on product exposure; without such a showing on that essential element, summary judgment for the defendant is proper.


Catrett v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 826 F.2d 33 (D.C. Cir. 1987)