Advisory Committee Comment-2018 Amendments

Rule 56 is extensively revamped to improve its operation. These amendments closely follow the amendments to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 2010. They are not intended to change substantially practice imder the rule, and very carefidly preserve the familiar test of “no gemdne issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law” in Rule 56.01.

Rule 56.03(c) makes it clear that the court is not required to consider any matters beyond those filed in conjunction with the motion for summary judgment-filed by either the movant or any other parties. Ride 115.03(d) of the Minnesota General Rules of Practice sets forth specific requirements for what must be filed for summary judgment motions and responses. Rule 56.03 also retains, however, the traditional rule allowing the court to base either the grant or denial of summary judg^nent on anyfactucd material contained in the record-tins means the entire court file record, including all pleadings, other filings, and transcripts ofarguments or hearings.

Rule 56.03(d) refers to “affidavits ” as that term is defined for all proceedings by Rule 15 of the Mnnesota General Rules of Practice. That rule encompasses both statements signed, sworn to, and notarized and statements signed under penalty of perjury in accordance with the rule.

Rule 56.06 carries forward the existing procedure allowing entry of judgment in favor of the movant or nonmovant, granting the motion on grounds other than those argued or considering summary judgment on its own initiative. See, e.g., Del Hayes & Sons, Inc. v Mitchell, 304 Mimi. 275, 230 N. W.2d 588 (1975) (sua sponte grant of summary judgment allowed). Where the court acts on its own initiative, the rule specifies that the parties are entitled to notice of its view about fact issues that may not be in dispute. That notice should precede any order for summary judgment by the 14-dccy minimum notice period specified in Rule 56.02.