How are motions for summary judgment opposed?
<p>I have been reading up on summary judgment as applied to Minnesota civil trials.  While I believe I have a reasonable handle on how and when to file a motion of summary judgment, one thing that is unclear to me is how one would oppose such a motion.</p>
<p>Summary judgment requires material facts upon which there is no genuine dispute, and that the requested jugement is something the movant is entitled to, per <a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/cp/id/56/#56.01" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.01</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I see two obvious ways in which the opposing party might take issue with the motion: that at least one of the material facts presented is actually in dispute, or that the requested judgment isn't something the movant is actually entitled to.</p>
<p>I see a number of references in the Minnesota court rules about opposing a motion of summary judgment, but I'm not seeing anything about how such a motion would be filed or what it would look like.  Likewise, an Internet search isn't finding me much in the way of concrete examples of motions opposing summary judgment in Minnesota district court.</p>
<p>How are motions for summary judgment opposed when the other party disagrees that the summary judgment is warranted?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>How are motions for summary judgment opposed when the other party disagrees that the summary judgment is warranted?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The non-movant timely files an opposition brief and attends the hearing, just like with any other motion. To defeat the motion on grounds of disputed material facts, the opposition brief must explain how the existing evidence is insufficient or inconclusive for supporting the moving party's position.</p>
<p>One common scenario is that ascertaining the truth of a disputed material fact entails <em>credibility issues</em>, which is something the jury assesses <em>at trial</em> by scrutinizing witnesses' testimony under oath and/or other evidence. See <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/2003812662nw2d1501808" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Longrie v. Luthen</em>, 662 N.W.2d 150, 154 (2003)</a> (&quot;<em>In an appeal from a summary judgment, we inquire as to whether there exists any genuine issue of material fact <strong>for trial</strong> [...] He claims that he paid those dividends [...], but that claim raises credibility issues</em>&quot;, emphasis added). The non-movant needs to substantiate how pending evidence or testimony of relevant witnesses precludes summary judgment. My <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9pwLmQ-UixYWWUyWnoyVVVKcTg/view?resourcekey=0-YRnWP5HNEU5oIl3vGwLRdw" rel="nofollow noreferrer">appellate brief</a> showcases on pages 24-28 this type of arguments, which <em>in a non-corrupt court</em> would preclude summary judgment.</p>
<p>Another scenario is that the moving party has been blocking non-movant's discovery efforts or that a third-party has not facilitated the requested evidence. There the non-movant needs to substantiate the relevance of that evidence as well as his efforts to obtain it. See rule 56.04. Granting summary judgment would be improper, since it deprives the non-movant from due process. The aforementioned brief also includes examples of that type of arguments.</p>
<p>In many instances, the movant's evidence might be inadmissible. But if the non-movant does not object to the admissibility, that evidence will be considered undisputed or stipulated by the parties.</p>
<p>Any specifics on the matter you have in mind would have helped narrowing down the answer.</p>

united-states minnesota motion summary-judgment