A motion for summary judgment asks the court to decide the case, or a specific claim within it, without a trial, on the ground that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Losing this motion can end a case or a claim before a jury ever hears it, which makes the response one of the highest-stakes documents a litigator writes short of a trial brief. A weak or disorganized opposition — one that argues generally instead of pointing to specific admissible evidence — routinely loses even when the underlying facts were genuinely disputed.

The response is not the place to relitigate the whole case in narrative form. Courts deciding summary judgment are looking for one thing with laser focus: is there a genuine dispute about a fact that actually matters to the outcome, supported by evidence a jury could believe? Everything else — however persuasive as advocacy — is noise the court has to work around. Building that fact-by-fact record is exactly the discipline a litigation simulation depends on too: every input has to be traceable to a specific, defensible source, not an assertion.

The moving party must show there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the undisputed facts. A fact is material if it could affect the outcome under the governing law; a dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could find for the nonmoving party based on the evidence presented.

Critically, the court does not weigh the evidence or decide credibility at this stage — it asks only whether a reasonable jury could resolve the disputed fact in the nonmoving party's favor. Reminding the court of this standard, and holding the moving party to it, is often as important as the facts themselves.

Go through the moving party's statement of undisputed facts line by line. For each one, ask three questions: is it actually supported by the cited evidence, is it actually undisputed, and is it actually material to the claim or defense at issue. Facts that fail any of the three should be challenged specifically, with a citation to contrary evidence — not with a general denial.

Pay particular attention to facts stated as conclusions dressed up as facts ('the contract was breached') rather than genuine facts ('the delivery occurred on this date'). Legal conclusions are not entitled to the presumption of truth that properly supported factual statements receive.

Most jurisdictions and courts require a responsive statement that mirrors the moving party's numbered facts, admitting or disputing each one with a record citation. Treat this as the most important document in your opposition — many judges read it before, or instead of, the narrative brief, because it tells them immediately whether a genuine factual fight exists.

Where you have your own facts that create a dispute or provide necessary context, add them as a separate statement of additional material facts, each independently supported by a citation to admissible evidence in the record.

A brief that argues why the plaintiff should win, without pointing to specific record evidence, does not defeat summary judgment. Every disputed fact needs a citation to something a jury could actually consider: deposition testimony, an authenticated document, an admissible declaration, discovery responses. Speculation, conclusory denials, and attorney argument are not evidence.

Declarations and affidavits submitted in opposition must be based on personal knowledge and set out facts that would be admissible in evidence — a declaration that simply restates legal conclusions or contradicts the declarant's own prior sworn testimony without a credible explanation is frequently disregarded.

If discovery necessary to respond has not yet occurred, most rules permit a request — supported by a declaration explaining specifically what discovery is needed and why it is expected to create a genuine dispute — asking the court to deny or defer the motion until that discovery is complete. A vague assertion that 'more discovery might help' is not enough; the request has to identify specific, targeted discovery reasonably expected to produce evidence bearing on the motion.

File this request promptly once you recognize the gap, rather than waiting until the opposition deadline, since courts weigh whether the nonmoving party diligently pursued the missing discovery earlier in the case.