Minnesota’s Rule 56 reads almost like the federal rule. That’s the trap. The 2018 amendments deliberately tracked the 2010 federal amendments, so an out-of-state lawyer skims it, recognizes it, and files a federal-style brief. Then three differences start costing real motions. Minnesota forbids filing a summary judgment motion more than 30 days after the close of all discovery, where the federal rule permits filing up to that point. Minnesota’s service and filing deadlines come from a separate rule of court entirely. And the supporting memorandum has to carry a fact recital with record citations that the civil rule never mentions.
When can I file, and when is it too late?
Rule 56.02 sets both ends, and the back end is a bar, not a permission:
“Service and filing of the motion must comply with the requirements of Rule 115.03 of the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts, provided that in no event shall the motion be served less than 14 days before the time fixed for the hearing. Unless the court orders otherwise, a party may not file a motion for summary judgment more than 30 days after the close of all discovery.”
That subdivision holds three numbers that matter. Timing runs through Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.03, which requires the movant to pay any required motion filing fee, serve, and file the motion papers at least 28 days before the hearing, with the response due at least 14 days before and any reply at least 7 days before. Then 14 days is an absolute floor on service. The court can compress the Rule 115 schedule, but Rule 115.01(b) provides that “in no event shall the time limited be less than the time established by Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.02.” And 30 days after the close of all discovery is the outer limit, absent a court order.
Now look at Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b), which provides that “[u]nless a different time is set by local rule or the court orders otherwise, a party may file a motion for summary judgment at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery.” Federal practice treats 30 days as the end of an open window. Minnesota writes it as a prohibition: “a party may not file a motion for summary judgment more than 30 days after the close of all discovery.” Assume you can bring the motion whenever the case is ready for it, and you can find the right to bring it gone.
The full set of deadlines is in the Rule 115 article.
What is the standard, and is it the federal standard?
Not word for word. Rule 56.01 provides:
“A party may move for summary judgment, identifying each claim or defense - or the part of each claim or defense - on which summary judgment is sought. The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
The federal rule was amended in 2010 to read “no genuine dispute as to any material fact.” Minnesota kept “no genuine issue.” The advisory committee comment to the 2018 amendments says that was on purpose: the amendments “very carefully preserve the familiar test of ‘no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law’ in Rule 56.01.” Whether the different wording carries a different substance is a question for the case law, and this piece doesn’t resolve it. But a brief that quotes the federal formulation as if it were the Minnesota rule is quoting the wrong text.
Same subdivision, one more difference. Rule 56.01 closes, “The court shall state on the record or in a written decision the reasons for granting or denying the motion.” The federal rule says the court should state its reasons on the record. Minnesota says shall, and adds the written-decision option. Keep that sentence in mind when you’re thinking about what the order will give you to work with.
And notice the first sentence’s demand that the movant identify “each claim or defense - or the part of each claim or defense - on which summary judgment is sought.” Partial summary judgment is squarely contemplated. A motion that waves at the whole case without saying what it wants judgment on isn’t doing what the rule asks.
How must I support the assertion that a fact is or is not disputed?
Rule 56.03(a) gives you two methods, and only two:
“A party asserting that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact must support the assertion by: (1) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or (2) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine issue for trial, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.”
Lawyers forget method (2) exists. It lets a party without affirmative evidence carry the point by showing the other side can’t produce admissible evidence to support the fact. That’s how a defendant gets at an element the plaintiff has the burden on without building a record of its own. Deemed admissions and discovery responses are on the method (1) list; see written discovery.
Rule 56.03(b) supplies the admissibility objection: “A party may object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.” The objection goes to the form, meaning whether the material could be presented admissibly. It doesn’t go to whether the exhibit as submitted would come in at trial.
Rule 56.03(c) is short and it bites: “The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record.” The court is entitled to stop at what you cited. A fact your brief doesn’t point to may never get read.
Rule 56.03(d) governs affidavits: one “must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant is competent to testify on matters stated.” Minnesota doesn’t require a notary to get there. Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 15 defines “affidavit,” unless otherwise specified in any court rule, to include “a document that has been signed under penalty of perjury pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 358.116, provided that the signature is affixed immediately below a declaration using substantially the following language: ‘I declare under penalty of perjury that everything I have stated in this document is true and correct.’” Rule 15 adds a requirement that’s easy to miss: “In addition to the signature, the date of signing and the county and state where the document was signed shall be noted on the document.”
What does the general rule of practice add?
A separately captioned fact recital with pinpoint record citations, and it isn’t in Rule 56 at all. Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.03(d) requires the memorandum of law on a summary judgment motion to include four things:
- “A statement by the moving party of the issues involved which are the grounds for the motion for summary judgment”;
- “A statement identifying all documents (such as depositions or excerpts thereof, pleadings, exhibits, admissions, interrogatory answers, and affidavits) which comprise the record on which the motion is made,” with opposing parties required to “identify in their responding Memorandum of Law any additional documents on which they rely”;
- “A recital by the moving party of the material facts as to which there is no genuine dispute, with a specific citation to that part of the record supporting each fact, such as deposition page and line or page and paragraph of an exhibit,” and — the sentence opposing counsel skip — “A party opposing the motion shall, in like manner, make a recital of any material facts claimed to be in dispute”; and
- “The party’s argument and authorities.”
Two riders follow. Rule 115.03(d) states: “These additional requirements also apply to a motion under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12 if factually based. Part (3) is excluded from the page limitations of this rule.” So a factually based Rule 12 motion picks up the same recital duty, and the recital doesn’t count against the 35-page cap in Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.05. There’s no reason to write a thin one.
What happens if I do not properly support or address a fact?
Rule 56.05 gives the court four options, and only one of them is a second chance:
“If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56.03, the court may: (a) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact; (b) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion; (c) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials - including the facts considered undisputed - show that the movant is entitled to it; or (d) issue any other appropriate order.”
Options (b) and (c) work as a pair. A fact you didn’t address can be treated as undisputed, and the motion can then be granted on a record that includes it. Nothing in the subdivision requires the court to warn you first.
What if I need discovery before I can respond?
Rule 56.04 is the affidavit-based continuance, and it takes an affidavit. An argument in a brief won’t do:
“If a nonmovant shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (a) defer considering the motion or deny it; (b) allow time to obtain affidavits or to take discovery; or (c) issue any other appropriate order.”
Two conditions in the opening clause do the work: by affidavit, and for specified reasons. A general gripe that discovery isn’t finished doesn’t invoke this subdivision. Identify the facts you can’t present yet, why you can’t, and what discovery would turn them up. On what discovery you’re entitled to in the first place, see Rule 26.
What can the court do besides grant or deny the motion?
More than most briefs see coming. Three subdivisions carry powers that work independently of whatever relief you asked for.
Judgment independent of the motion — Rule 56.06. “After giving notice and a reasonable time to respond, the court may: (a) grant summary judgment for a nonmovant; (b) grant the motion on grounds not raised by a party; or (c) consider summary judgment on its own initiative after identifying for the parties the material facts that may not be genuinely in dispute.” Move for summary judgment and you’re exposing your own claims and defenses to a judgment that runs the other way. The 2018 advisory committee comment notes that where the court acts on its own initiative, notice “should precede any order for summary judgment by the 14-day minimum notice period specified in Rule 56.02.”
Partial relief with facts established — Rule 56.07. “If the court does not grant all the relief requested by the motion, it may enter an order stating any material fact - including an item of damages or other relief - that is not genuinely at issue and treating the fact as established in the case.” A denied motion can still shrink the trial. Ask for this expressly, in the alternative.
Bad-faith affidavits — Rule 56.08. “If satisfied that an affidavit under this rule is submitted in bad faith or solely for delay, the court - after notice and a reasonable time to respond - may order the submitting party to pay the other party the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, it incurred as a result. An offending party or attorney may also be held in contempt or subjected to other appropriate sanctions.” That’s fee exposure riding on the affidavit itself, separate from any other sanctions rule.
Does the assigned judge add requirements?
They can, and you have to go look. Minnesota district judges publish standing orders and practice pointers that can impose things Rule 56 and Rule 115 don’t: courtesy copy formats, submission conventions, and specific expectations about how the fact recital is laid out. Where a judge’s order speaks to a matter, that order governs how the motion gets handled in that courtroom. The orders are published on the judicial district’s pages at mncourts.gov, and you should read them before you get a hearing date. Nothing here describes what any particular judge requires.
One related note for cases with an expert-affidavit gate: the certification deadlines in those statutes run on their own clock, and surviving summary judgment doesn’t cure them. See the expert affidavit requirement.
Madgett Law, LLC associates with out-of-state and newly admitted counsel on Minnesota district court matters. Send us a message.
Sources: Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.01 (standard; identification of each claim or defense; court shall state reasons), 56.02 (compliance with Gen. R. Prac. 115.03; 14-day service floor; 30-day post-discovery bar), 56.03(a)(1)–(2), (b), (c), (d) (supporting factual positions; admissibility objection; materials not cited; affidavits), 56.04(a)–(c) (facts unavailable to the nonmovant), 56.05(a)–(d) (failing to properly support or address a fact), 56.06(a)–(c) (judgment independent of the motion), 56.07 (partial relief; facts established), 56.08 (affidavit submitted in bad faith), and the Advisory Committee Comment — 2018 Amendments; Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 115.01(b), 115.03(a)–(c), 115.03(d)(1)–(4), 115.05; Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 15(b) (affidavit by declaration under penalty of perjury; Minn. Stat. § 358.116). Federal comparison: Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) and 56(b). Minnesota rule text: Minnesota Judicial Branch rules text, 2026-08-10; federal rule text: Cornell Legal Information Institute, 2026-08-10.
General legal information about Minnesota law, not legal advice. No attorney–client relationship is created by this article, and no outcome is promised or implied.