## Facts

- Myrtle Nell Catrett, as administratrix of her husband’s estate, filed a wrongful-death action alleging his death resulted from exposure to asbestos products manufactured or distributed by multiple defendants, including Celotex Corporation.
- After discovery, Celotex moved for summary judgment, asserting Catrett lacked evidence that the decedent had been exposed to Celotex products.
- Catrett responded with documents tending to show exposure; Celotex argued the materials were inadmissible hearsay.
- The federal district court granted summary judgment for Celotex, finding no showing of exposure to Celotex products.
- The D.C. Circuit reversed, holding summary judgment was improper because Celotex had not produced evidence negating exposure and thus had not met its initial burden.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to clarify the movant’s burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

## Issues

1. Whether a summary-judgment movant must produce affirmative evidence negating an essential element of the nonmovant’s claim.
2. Whether the movant may satisfy Rule 56 by pointing to an absence of evidence in the record on an element the nonmovant must prove at trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that Rule 56 does not require the movant to support its motion with affidavits or similar materials negating the opponent’s claim.
- The movant may discharge its initial Rule 56 burden by showing—by identifying in the record—that there is an absence of evidence supporting the nonmovant’s case on a required element.
- Once that showing is made, the nonmovant must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue for trial.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings under the correct Rule 56 standard, including assessment of whether the plaintiff’s proffered materials sufficed.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is required, after adequate time for discovery, against a party who fails to make a sufficient showing on an element essential to that party’s case and on which that party bears the burden of proof at trial.
- A “complete failure of proof” on an essential element makes other facts immaterial and eliminates any genuine issue of material fact.
- Rule 56 does not impose an affirmative-evidence requirement on the movant; the rule’s reference to affidavits “if any” permits motions based on the existing record.
- After the movant shows an absence of evidence on a required element, the nonmovant must produce specific record facts (e.g., affidavits, depositions, interrogatory answers, admissions) showing a triable issue; reliance on pleadings is insufficient.
- A conclusory assertion of “no evidence” is inadequate; the movant must identify record materials demonstrating the claimed evidentiary absence.

## Conclusion

The Court clarified that a summary-judgment movant need not negate the opponent’s claim with its own evidence; it may meet its initial Rule 56 burden by pointing out an absence of evidence on an element the nonmovant must prove, after which the nonmovant must produce specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.


Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)