Moving Party Meaning

The moving party, or movant, is the person or party asking the court to grant a motion. The nonmoving party, or nonmovant, is the party against whom that request is made. A plaintiff or defendant can occupy either role: the labels depend on who made the particular motion, not who started the lawsuit.

The distinction becomes important on a motion for summary judgment, where one side asks for a decision without trial. The moving party must first establish the required basis for judgment; the nonmoving party must address a properly supported challenge with the necessary record evidence. Filing first does not create a presumption that the movant is right.

Moving party versus nonmoving party

Parties retain their plaintiff or defendant status while their motion roles change. If a defendant requests judgment against the plaintiff's claim, the defendant is the moving party and the plaintiff is the nonmoving party on that request.

For federal civil summary judgment, the roles can be compared this way:

These are motion roles, not a transfer of the underlying trial burden. A defendant can be the movant while the plaintiff still bears the burden of proving an essential element of its claim at trial. Other motion types use different standards; this page follows the federal civil summary-judgment process.

How the motion-and-response sequence works

Motion means a request for a court order. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment requires no genuine dispute as to any material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

1. The moving party identifies the requested judgment. The motion should make clear which claim, defense, or issue it addresses and the governing legal standard.
2. The moving party makes its initial showing. Record materials may establish the necessary facts. Where the opponent bears the trial burden on an essential element, the movant may instead demonstrate a lack of supporting evidence after adequate time for discovery.
3. The nonmoving party addresses the supported challenge. It must identify specific evidence supporting a genuine material dispute, another reason judgment is unavailable, or a proper procedural basis for additional time. Repeating the complaint is insufficient.
4. The judge applies the standard to the record. The question is whether the legal requirements for judgment are met, not simply whose brief sounds more convincing.

In Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, the Supreme Court explained why a defendant need not always submit affidavits disproving the plaintiff's case. It may identify missing evidence on an essential element the plaintiff must prove. The movant still has an initial responsibility to identify the basis for its motion; a conclusory “there is no evidence” assertion is not a substitute for the required showing.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby explains the judge's different role at this stage: determine whether a reasonable jury could resolve a material dispute for the nonmovant. Credibility assessments and weighing competing evidence are not substitutes for that inquiry. Justifiable inferences favor the nonmoving party.

What should the response contain?

The governing rules and the judge's orders control the actual filing. A useful federal summary-judgment response generally connects four things:

• The contested assertion: identify the factual proposition or requested legal conclusion being challenged.
• The specific record citation: point to the relevant deposition passage, declaration paragraph, exhibit, admission, or other material, rather than attaching an unexplained stack of documents.
• The evidentiary basis: explain the facts through competent evidence and address any applicable objection to admissibility.
• The reason it matters: connect the dispute to an element or defense under the governing law. A disagreement about an irrelevant detail does not defeat judgment.

Rule 56(c)(4) requires supporting or opposing affidavits and declarations to rest on personal knowledge, contain facts admissible in evidence, and show the witness's competence. Not every statement must be notarized: a properly signed and dated declaration under penalty of perjury can substitute for an affidavit in circumstances covered by 28 U.S.C. section 1746. A bare narrative in a brief is not equivalent to such a declaration.

Admissibility also requires precision. Rule 56(c)(2) allows an objection that cited material cannot be presented in an admissible form. It does not require every item to be submitted in its eventual trial format at the moment of filing.

Example: a seller seeks judgment for unpaid goods, citing an invoice and delivery record. The buyer responds with its receiving manager's personal-knowledge declaration that the shipment was rejected and returned, supported by a contemporaneous record. If delivery or acceptance matters under the governing contract law, that evidence may establish a genuine dispute. “I disagree with the seller” alone does not do the same work. The example illustrates the method; the legal effect depends on the contract, applicable law, and actual evidence.

Local rules can require different documents

Check the court's local rules and the assigned judge's orders before preparing a statement of facts or choosing a response date. A federal rule number alone does not supply every filing requirement.

For example, the SDNY/EDNY Joint Local Rules, effective January 2, 2026, generally require a separate numbered statement of material facts under Rule 56.1, unless the court orders otherwise. The rule excludes claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and Freedom of Information Act. The opponent must respond in correspondingly numbered paragraphs, admitting or denying the assertions and supporting its position with evidence citations.

Those rules also require a represented movant seeking summary judgment against a self-represented party to serve and file the Rule 56.2 notice, with the specified rules attached. Self-representation does not make the evidence requirements disappear.

The Northern District of California's rules, effective October 2, 2026, take a different approach. Rule 56-2 prohibits a separate or joint statement of undisputed facts unless the assigned judge requires it. Copying another court's filing package can therefore introduce a procedural mistake.

Likewise, distinguish the deadline for making the motion from the deadline for opposing it. Read the applicable scheduling order and local motion rules; there is no single nationwide opposition deadline supplied by the words “moving party.”

What if the response is missing or insufficient?

Rule 56(e) provides several possible responses to an inadequately supported or inadequately answered factual assertion. The court may allow an opportunity to correct the problem, consider the fact undisputed for the motion, grant judgment if the motion and record establish entitlement, or issue another appropriate order. Summary judgment is not an automatic default judgment.

Failure mode: a general denial without evidence. A response that repeats allegations but does not address a properly supported material fact risks leaving that fact undisputed. Under SDNY/EDNY Rule 56.1(c), a numbered assertion is deemed admitted for the motion unless specifically denied and controverted in the required counterstatement. The movant must still be entitled to judgment.

Failure mode: assuming more discovery will happen later. Rule 56(d) permits a nonmovant to explain by affidavit or declaration the specified reasons it cannot yet present facts essential to its opposition. The court may defer or deny the motion, allow time for discovery, or make another appropriate order. That relief requires a supported request, rather than silence or a vague promise to find evidence.

The practical reading sequence is: identify the moving party, identify the requested judgment, match each material assertion to the response and its record support, then check the governing procedure. That connects the terminology to what can actually affect the litigation.