Rule 56: Out with the Old in with the New
Rule 56: Out with the Old in with the New
By Christian St. Martin
Lee v. Offshore Logistical & Transp., L.L.C., 859 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. June 9th, 2017, Filed).Elwood Lee (“Lee”) was injured while on a workboat, M/V Balty, which was owned by Offshore Logistical & Transports LLC (“Offshore”), Lee’s alleged employer. Lee sued Offshore under the Jones Act, claiming negligence and unseaworthiness.Offshore filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted by the district court. The district court concluded that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that would support a finding of negligence. The evidence in question is a signed, unsworn statement by Captain James P. Jamison of the Balty. Essentially, the district court found that the statement was not admissible for trial in its current form. The district court relied on a prior version of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56, specifically sub-part (e) of the rule pertaining to affidavits.In 2010, Rule 56 was amended to clarify and streamline motions for summary judgments and to make clear the process for supporting assertions of facts during hearings on summary judgment. The amended Rule 56 indicates that the party asserting a fact must be supported by citing to particular parts of the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations. Further, Rule 56 states that on summary judgment, the substance or content of the evidence must be admissible; but the material itself may be presented in a form that would not be admissible at trial. It is necessary for the proponent of the evidence to show that the evidence could possibly be put into an admissible form for trial. The Rule states that affidavits, documents, depositions, and other materials may be used to support the facts. Accordingly, the new Rule addresses the opposing party’s concern that inauthentic material may slip through without proper vetting. To curb this concern, the rule allows the opposing party to object under the assertion that it would be impossible for the evidence to be put in a form acceptable to the court.Here, the district court did not rule that Captain Jamison’s statement could not be put into an admissible form for trial; therefore, the court of appeals vacated and remanded the case with instructions to apply the amended Rule 56 to the matter. If the plaintiff can prove that the statement from Captain Jamison could be put into an admissible form, the case will likely proceed to trial, assuming no settlement is reached beforehand.
