Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 966 sets forth the rules governing summary judgment proceedings in state court. The provisions in Article 966 are highly technical and courts require strict compliance with them before granting a motion for summary judgment. Certain of these provisions concern the way that parties must present evidence to support or oppose a summary judgment motion.
To summarize, the mover and the non-mover generally must file all their supporting evidence with the motion and opposition, respectively. However, if the mover or non-mover wants to support their position with a document that has previously been filed into the suit record, Subparagraph (A)(4)(b) permits them to “specifically reference” that document “by listing with the motion or opposition the document by title and date of filing.” That provision further requires the referencing party to “concurrently with the filing of the motion or opposition furnish to the court and the opposing party a copy of the entire document with the pertinent part designated and the filing information.”
The “adoption by reference” procedure in Subparagraph (A)(4)(b) is one of several new provisions added by the 2023 legislative amendments to Article 966. Under the prior version of Article 966, parties were required to file all their supporting evidence with the motion and opposition – even if that evidence had previously been filed into the suit record.
As you could imagine, that made the filing costs for summary judgment motions and oppositions needlessly higher. Subparagraph (A)(4)(b) was meant to fix that.
Nevertheless, parties availing themselves of the “adoption by reference” procedure in Article 966(A)(4)(b) still must show strict compliance with its requirements. A recent First Circuit Court of Appeal decision illustrates the consequences of a party’s failure to do so.
In Blount Bros. Construction, LLC v. DOTD, et al., the First Circuit reversed the trial court’s judgment granting the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment because the defendant failed to comply with Article 966(A)(4)(b).
The First Circuit explained that this provision “permits a party seeking summary judgment to specifically reference documents previously filed into the record but requires movant to list with the motion the document by title and date of filing and concurrently with the filing of the motion furnish the court and opposing party with a copy of the entire document with the pertinent part designated and the filing information. On de novo review, we find it undisputed that movant failed to comply with that requirement. Consequently, there was no admissible summary judgment evidence before the trial court to support the motion.”
Bottom line: when moving for or opposing a summary judgment, make sure to cross all your T’s and dot all your I’s.
About Our Author
Taylor Brett is a Partner in the Adams and Reese New Orleans office and a member of the firm’s Litigation Practice Group. Taylor represents clients across multiple industries, predominately in the energy and natural gas sectors. His work covers a broad spectrum of legal issues involving commercial disputes. He has written extensively on the subject of motions for summary judgment, including two peer-reviewed law review articles discussing a variety of summary judgment-related topics:
- Another Call to Amend Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 966 to Promote Efficiency, Practicality, and Alignment with the Explicit Purpose of Summary Judgment Procedure, 68 Loy. L. Rev. 223 (2022)
- Back to the Drawing Board: A Recap of the 2023 Legislative Amendments to Article 966 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, 84 La. L. Rev. 867 (2024)