BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

    Intermediate

  • work Practice Area

    Class Action and Other Litigation

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Tuesday, December 19, 2023

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

$297.00
CLE
ALL

This CLE webinar will discuss what practitioners should know about the unique and overlooked evidentiary standards on summary judgment if they want to give themselves--and their clients--the best chance of prevailing at the summary judgment stage. The program will also review analogous evidentiary issues that frequently arise in bench trials.

Faculty

Kristen DeWilde
Attorney
Williams & Connolly LLP

Ms. DeWilde earned her J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where she was a Levy Scholar and graduated summa cum laude. She was awarded Order of the Coif and was the recipient of the David Werner Amram Prize, the Edwin R. Keedy Law Review Award, and the George Shechtman Prize. Ms. DeWilde received her B.A. and B.B.A. from the University of North Texas, graduating summa cum laude. While in law school, she served as Comments Editor of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review and was a research assistant to Professors Herbert Hovenkamp, Jean Galbraith, and Kermit Roosevelt III.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
John McNichols
Partner
Williams & Connolly LLP

Mr. McNichols focuses his practice in trial litigation, with emphasis in trade secret disputes involving technology companies. He has multiple clients in the Dulles Technology Corridor, including Appian and Vercara.  Mr. McNichols has tried multiple civil cases in both state and federal court, representing both plaintiffs and defendants.  Outside of his civil trial practice, Mr. McNichols has also represented criminal defendants in multiple matters, including a recent conspiracy trial in federal court in Maryland resulting in a jury acquittal. He is an Adjunct Professor of Evidence at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, a member of the Continuing Legal Education Committee of the DC Bar, and an Associate Editor of Litigation News, where he writes the quarterly column on technology and the law. 

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

Serious consequences flow from failing to recognize or in underestimating that the evidentiary standards governing summary judgment are not the same as those that govern at trial. Practitioners who conflate these separate standards may keep failing to introduce relevant material, raise meritless objections, routinely develop distorted views of the client's odds at the summary judgment stage, and lose credibility with the court.

When reviewing the evidence at summary judgment, courts are not called upon to determine if the proffered evidence is admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Since 2010, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) authorizes federal trial judges to consider any materials in the record at summary judgment unless those materials "cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence." Essentially, at summary judgment, a court can rely on anything if it is capable of being put into admissible form at trial, which may open up a world of opportunity.

The standard also creates concerns over objecting to material offered by opposing counsel, and many of these issues present in bench trials.

Listen as this premier panel of litigators reviews the difference between evidentiary standards at summary judgment and those at trial, discusses how underestimating those differences can prevent success at summary judgment, and offers strategies for maximizing those differences for the benefit of the client.

Outline

  1. Evidentiary standards at trial
  2. Evidentiary standards at summary judgment stage
  3. Interplay between evidentiary standards and burdens of proof
  4. Authentication and hearsay issues
    1. Depositions
    2. Affidavits, declarations, and exhibits
    3. Expert testimony
    4. Inferences
  5. Objection strategies
  6. Evidentiary issues in bench trials

Benefits

The panel will review these and other key issues:

  • Why is the evidentiary standard different at summary judgment?
  • What types of "inadmissible" issues can and cannot be corrected before trial?
  • How does the standard affect the use of affidavits at summary judgment?
  • What evidentiary standards apply at bench trials?