IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Regina M. Rodriguez
STANDING ORDER REGARDING RULE 56 MOTIONS
(Effective December 1, 2022; Updated July 7, 2025)
To facilitate meaningful discussions among the parties prior to the dispositive
motion stage, it is hereby ORDERED that parties litigating before this Court must comply
with certain prerequisites for filing summary judgment motions:
I. PURPOSE
A. Motions for summary judgment are appropriate when there is “no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. All too often, litigants in federal court
ignore this threshold requirement and file motions for summary judgment as
a matter of course. Summary judgment motions can be a valuable tool for
narrowing or resolving issues in a case, but where there are obvious
disputes as to material facts, summary judgment motions merely burden the
Courts and impose unnecessary costs on the parties.
B. Determining whether there are disputes as to material facts is an important
step in the litigation process, and it requires the parties to meaningfully meet
and confer. A meaningful conferral should enable the parties to identify (a)
what facts are material and (b) whether those facts are in dispute.
II. APPLICABILITY
A. This Standing Order Regarding Rule 56 Motions shall apply to all civil
actions except:
1. Social Security actions.
2. Actions with pro se parties: In actions where one or more party is
unrepresented, the parties should address the dispositive motions
deadline during the scheduling conference.
III. NOTICE TO CHAMBERS
A. No later than ten (10) days after the close of discovery, a party seeking
to file a motion for summary judgment must email Chambers, copying
opposing counsel, to inform the Court of their intent to file such motion.
B. Upon receipt of such notice, the Court will schedule a conference with the
parties to discuss the material facts and to determine whether there are
disputes of any material facts.
IV. CONFERENCE REQUIREMENTS
A. No later than three (3) business days prior to the conference, the Parties
shall jointly file via CM/ECF a chart of undisputed material facts. This will
require the parties to substantively meet and confer. It is insufficient for
the parties to simply exchange their version of the chart. The parties
are expected to allow sufficient time to exchange and substantively discuss
the chart prior to submission to the Court. The form for the chart that the
parties should use to submit their statement of material facts can be found
on the Court’s website.
B. This chart is intended to provide the parties and the Court with an easy way
of determining whether there are disputes as to material facts, and to
therefore guide the parties as they consider the propriety of potential
motions for summary judgment. The chart is not intended to provide a
forum for the parties to set forth legal arguments; it is merely a tool for
establishing those facts that are, in fact, undisputed.
C. For each claim on which the proposed movant seeks summary judgment,
they should identify the undisputed material facts that support their claim.
Each fact must be supported by specific citations to supporting
evidence.
1. Whether something is a fact is a simple inquiry, but it is one that is
occasionally overlooked in the throes of zealous advocacy. When
drafting motions for summary judgment, the parties should ensure
that their alleged “facts” are actually facts.
2. As an aid the parties, the Court has provided a table at the end of
this Standing Order with examples of statements that the Court
would and would not recognize as “facts.”
3. When a party alleges a purportedly undisputed fact, they must cite
to evidence supporting that fact. The citation must be clear and
specific—do not cite to an entire deposition transcript or to a multi-
page document. Provide a page and/or line number.
4. Parties need not file exhibits with the chart. Citations to relevant
documents within the chart are sufficient.
2
D. If the nonmovant disputes a particular fact, they shall identify the evidence
that contradicts the purported fact. Any statement contradicting a movant’s
statement of undisputed facts must be supported by specific citations to
supporting evidence.
1. When a fact is supported by evidence, the non-movant should not
dispute that fact unless the nonmovant can point to contradictory
evidence.
2. A fact is not disputed merely because the parties disagree as to the
inference to be drawn from that fact.
3. A party disputing a purported fact must point to specific evidence that
contradicts that purported fact. The citation must be clear and
specific—do not cite to an entire deposition transcript or to a multi-
page document. Provide a page and/or line number.
E. The parties shall state whether they agree that the fact in question is
material.
F. The entries in this chart should be simple and straightforward.
G. The parties should meet and confer meaningfully prior to filing the chart of
undisputed material facts. A fact is not disputed merely because a party
disputes the implication or import of that fact. Where a party disputes a fact,
the party should succinctly identify the contradictory evidence. The chart of
undisputed material facts is not an opportunity for the parties to provide
legal argument. The parties will be given an opportunity at the conference
to discuss their positions.
H. At or after the conference, the Court will consider the issues raised and will
set a briefing schedule. The Court will not preclude a party from filing a
motion for summary judgment, but the Court will make suggestions
regarding issues based on the facts identified during the conference.
I. Motions for summary judgment filed without adhering to these procedures
may be stricken for noncompliance.
3
V. EARLY MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
A. No party shall file an early motion for summary judgment without first
obtaining leave of the Judge or Magistrate Judge.
DATED: July 7, 2025
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
REGINA M. RODRIGUEZ
United States District Judge
4
VI. TABLE OF EXAMPLE STATEMENTS
Note: This table is provided for the convenience and aid of the parties appearing before
Judge Rodriguez. It contains examples of statements that the Court would and would not
recognize as “facts.”
FACT NOT A FACT
“The Plaintiff was 60 years old on the date “The Plaintiff was fired because he was 60
of his termination” is a fact. years old” is not a fact.
“The Plaintiff was replaced by someone “The Defendant worked for months to
nine years his junior” is a fact. ‘manage out’ the Plaintiff so that he could
replace him with someone nine years his
junior” is not a fact.
“There were no formal complaints filed “Other than one minor error due to
against the Plaintiff during his tenure with ambiguous instructions, the Plaintiff
the company” is a fact. performed his job appropriately and his
decisions were well-reasoned and well-
supported” is not a fact.
“Defendant re-reviewed the policy after a “Defendant’s decision to take a second
third party approached it with questions” is look at the policy after receiving additional
a fact. information was not an error or mistake,
and Defendant’s offer to rewrite the policy
was reasonable and appropriate” is not a
fact.
5
VII. EXAMPLE CHART OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
[Party’s] Motion for Summary Judgment on [Party’s] Claim # ____
Movant’s purported undisputed material fact Non-movant’s response Do the parties
(with citations) (with citations) agree that the
purported fact is
material?
The Plaintiff’s employment began on June 15,
2018.
Undisputed. Agree.
BATES004298.
The Plaintiff was terminated on June 30, 2020.
Undisputed. Agree.
BATES004214.
Disputed. The superintendent Mr. Smith, not
Defendant Doe made the decision to terminate
Defendant Doe, made the decision to
the Plaintiff.
terminate the Plaintiff. Agree.
BATES005732; Doe Dep. Tr. 10:22–11:1.
BATES006873; Smith Dep. Tr. 51:15–24.
One month prior to the Plaintiff’s termination, the
Plaintiff filed a complaint about Defendant Doe’s
allegedly discriminatory statements to the
Undisputed. Agree.
Plaintiff and other employees.
BATES001301.
Defendant Doe’s employment records state that,
in 2019, he was investigated for “potential
misuse of the company credit card.” Undisputed. Disagree.
BATES006832.
7
