How to Oppose a Motion for Summary Judgment in Utah: A Step-by-Step Guide

Receiving a motion for summary judgment can feel like the other side is holding all the cards. Their brief makes the case look airtight. Their statement of undisputed facts is long, cited to the record at every turn, and tells a story that favors them at every step. The instinct is to panic.

Resist it. Summary judgment motions are frequently denied — and the difference between a grant and a denial almost always comes down to the quality of the opposition. A focused, record-grounded opposition that maps factual disputes to legal elements and challenges the movant’s evidence at every weak point is the most powerful document in summary judgment practice. This post walks through how to build one.

---

Step 1: Read the Motion Like a Judge

Before drafting a single word of opposition, read the motion as a neutral judge would. What is the movant actually arguing? Which element of which claim or defense is being targeted? What evidence does the movant rely on, and how is it being characterized?

Many MSJ oppositions fail because they respond to the case generally rather than to the motion specifically. A motion arguing you cannot prove causation needs an opposition about causation — with evidence, legal argument, and record citations targeted precisely at that element. Broad counter-narratives about what a sympathetic jury might do are not enough.

Identify the movant’s core legal theory and the specific element they claim is missing or negated. That is the target. Everything in your opposition should be aimed at it.

---

Step 2: Audit Your Record

Before you can write the opposition, you need to know what evidence you have. Go through every deposition, every document produced in discovery, every interrogatory response, every expert report, every admission. You are looking for evidence that creates a genuine dispute on each material fact the movant claims is undisputed.

Make a two-column audit: on the left, every fact in the movant’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (SUMF); on the right, your evidence in response. This exercise reveals both strengths and gaps. An empty right column on a key fact is a serious problem — address it before the opposition is filed, not after.

The audit also reveals which facts can be admitted without conceding the motion. Many non-movants dispute every fact in the SUMF reflexively, including facts they cannot genuinely contest. Judges notice this, and it undermines credibility. Admit what you cannot actually dispute, dispute specifically what you can, and focus your energy on the facts that are both genuinely contested and material to the outcome.

---

Step 3: Prepare Your Opposing Statement of Facts

Under URCP Rule 56 and most Utah district court local rules, the non-moving party must file a response to the movant’s SUMF. This is not a formality — it is one of the most consequential documents in the summary judgment record.

For each fact in the movant’s SUMF, you must: admit it, dispute it, or admit it in part and dispute it in part. Every disputed fact must cite specific record evidence. Any fact not specifically disputed with a record citation is typically deemed admitted by Utah district courts. That admission then becomes part of the established factual foundation the court uses for its legal analysis.

You may also add your own additional material facts — propositions the movant omitted from its SUMF that are material to the outcome. Use this strategically: if the movant’s SUMF tells only part of the story, your additional facts fill in the gaps with evidence that creates genuine disputes.

OPPOSING STATEMENT OF FACTS: KEY RULES

• Respond to every fact in the movant’s SUMF — silence equals admission
• Every disputed fact must cite specific record evidence (deposition, affidavit, document)
• Conclusory objections without citations are disregarded by the court
• Add your own additional material facts with citations to the record
• Be precise — do not overstate what your evidence actually shows

---

Step 4: Assess Whether You Need Additional Discovery

If the motion was filed before discovery is complete, and the missing discovery is likely to create genuine factual disputes, you may be able to seek additional time under URCP Rule 56(d). A Rule 56(d) motion allows you to ask the court to defer ruling until specific additional discovery can be conducted.

This is not a general request for more time. You must file an affidavit or declaration that: (1) identifies the specific discovery you need, (2) explains why it has not been obtained, (3) describes how it is likely to produce facts creating a genuine dispute, and (4) shows you have been diligent in pursuing discovery. Vague assertions that more discovery might help are insufficient.

For a full analysis of how Rule 56(d) works and when it applies, see our post on Rule 56(d) in Utah.

---

Step 5: Draft the Legal Argument

The legal argument section of your opposition should do three things: state the correct summary judgment standard, apply it to the specific facts in the record, and demonstrate that a genuine dispute of material fact exists on at least one element of the claim or defense being targeted.

Structure your argument around the elements being attacked. If the movant targets duty and causation in a negligence case, address them in separate sections with specific evidence cited for each. Do not bury your best evidence in a wall of text — present it clearly, with pinpoint record citations, and then explain why that evidence creates a genuine dispute a reasonable jury could resolve in your favor.

Explicitly invoke the requirement that the court draw all reasonable inferences in your favor. URCP Rule 56 requires it. If the evidence supports multiple reasonable interpretations, that cuts against the motion — make the argument directly.

For a detailed treatment of what makes a fact “material” and how to map your factual disputes to legal elements, see our post on how Utah courts decide what is a material fact.

---

Step 6: Challenge the Legal Sufficiency of the Motion

Even when the facts are largely undisputed, you may be able to defeat summary judgment by arguing that the law does not entitle the movant to judgment. This is especially effective when the applicable legal standard involves a flexible, fact-intensive inquiry.

In negligence cases, the “reasonableness” of conduct is typically a jury question. In bad faith insurance cases, whether the insurer acted with a reasonable basis is inherently fact-intensive. In employment discrimination cases, whether a non-discriminatory reason is pretextual often turns on inferences a jury must draw. These are contexts where the legal argument against summary judgment can be stronger than the factual argument — and where courts are most reluctant to resolve the issue on paper.

---

Step 7: Challenge Procedural Defects in the Motion

Before finalizing your opposition, examine whether the motion complies with all procedural requirements. Common defects include: failure to cite admissible evidence in the SUMF, use of inadmissible hearsay in supporting affidavits, failure to comply with local rules on page limits or formatting, reliance on documents not produced in discovery, and improper authentication of exhibits.

Procedural defects alone rarely defeat a well-supported motion, but they can support a motion to strike and undermine the court’s confidence in the movant’s arguments. Point them out specifically. If a significant portion of the SUMF relies on inadmissible hearsay, a focused motion to strike that portion can dramatically change the evidentiary foundation of the MSJ.

---

Step 8: Build the Appellate Record Simultaneously

This is the step many non-movants overlook: the opposition brief is also an appellate document. If summary judgment is granted and the case goes to the Utah Court of Appeals, the appellate court reviews the same record de novo. Issues not raised in the opposition are waived. Arguments not made below cannot be made on appeal.

This means every legal argument, every evidentiary challenge, every inference-drawing argument belongs in the opposition brief — not saved for later. The de novo standard on appeal is powerful, but it only helps if the argument was first made in the trial court. Build the appellate record while you are writing the opposition.

---

KEY RULE

URCP Rule 56 — What an Effective Opposition Must Do

The non-moving party must respond to every fact in the movant’s SUMF with specific record citations — silence equals admission. The opposition must produce admissible evidence showing a genuine dispute of material fact on at least one element being targeted. The court draws all reasonable inferences in the non-moving party’s favor — invoke this requirement explicitly. Legal arguments not raised in the opposition are typically waived on appeal. The opposition brief is simultaneously a trial court document and an appellate record-building exercise.

---

If You Have Received a Summary Judgment Motion

The response deadline — typically 28 days under URCP Rule 7, subject to the assigned judge’s standing order — starts running the day the motion is filed. Lotus Appellate Law works with Utah litigants and trial counsel on summary judgment oppositions and the appeals that follow. Contact us early to evaluate your options and build the strongest possible response.