Discover how courts handle credibility disputes during summary judgment. Learn how to frame factual conflicts that prevent dismissal and preserve your case for trial with Legal Husk.

How Courts View Credibility Disputes in Summary Judgment Motions

Introduction

One of the most effective ways to defeat a motion for summary judgment is to expose a credibility dispute—a factual disagreement that hinges on which side a jury believes. Courts are clear on one thing: they do not weigh credibility at the summary judgment stage. That is a job reserved for jurors.

So what happens when the facts of a case depend on who is telling the truth? How do courts view conflicting statements or competing witness accounts? And how can you frame your case to make sure it survives summary judgment?

In this article, we break down how courts treat credibility issues in summary judgment motions and offer strategic guidance for preserving factual disputes.

For expertly drafted opposition briefs and litigation strategy, visit legalhusk.com or legalhusk.com/services/civil-litigation.

What Is a Credibility Dispute?

A credibility dispute arises when:

• Two parties or witnesses give contradictory statements
• The truth of the matter depends on which person is more believable
• There’s no written record to conclusively prove either side’s version

Examples:

• One party claims harassment occurred; the other denies it
• Witness A says the light was red; Witness B says it was green
• Plaintiff claims delivery was late; Defendant says it was early

How Courts Treat Credibility at Summary Judgment

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and equivalent state rules require courts to:

• View the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party
• Avoid making credibility determinations
• Avoid weighing conflicting evidence

If a judge finds a genuine dispute dependent on credibility, they must deny summary judgment and allow the issue to go to trial.

Why Courts Avoid Weighing Credibility

Judges are not fact-finders at the summary judgment stage. Their job is not to decide who’s right, but to decide:

• Are there disputed facts?
• Could a reasonable jury find in favor of either party?

If the answer is yes, the case must proceed.

Common Types of Credibility Disputes

1. Conflicting Declarations or Affidavits

• Plaintiff says the defendant made a discriminatory comment
• Defendant files an affidavit denying it
• A credibility issue is created

2. Differing Deposition Testimony

• Two witnesses describe the same event differently
• Summary judgment is not appropriate

3. Document vs. Testimony Conflicts

• Testimony contradicts written records, but context matters
• Jury must assess whether the witness is being truthful

4. Self-Serving Testimony

• Courts may still credit self-serving testimony if it’s based on personal knowledge and not conclusory

How to Highlight Credibility Issues

1. Quote Conflicting Statements Side-by-Side

• Show how each party’s account differs

2. Emphasize the Importance of Demeanor

• Jurors must see and hear the witness to judge believability

3. Avoid Legal Conclusions

• Focus on the factual conflict—not what the law requires

4. Argue Materiality

• The dispute must affect an outcome-determinative fact

How Not to Lose to a Credibility Dispute

If you’re the moving party (trying to win summary judgment):

• Acknowledge conflicting evidence and explain why it’s not material
• Don’t rely solely on your own version of events
• Use corroborating documents or third-party declarations

If you’re the opposing party:

• Use declarations to directly dispute facts
• Point out inconsistencies or contradictions
• Assert that a jury must resolve the conflict

Judicial Quotes on Credibility in MSJ

"Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences... are jury functions, not those of a judge." – Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986)

"Even self-serving affidavits may create an issue of fact if based on personal knowledge and not wholly conclusory." – Hill v. Tangherlini, 724 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 2013)

How Legal Husk Can Help

At Legal Husk, we:

• Draft opposition briefs that emphasize credibility disputes
• Identify and contrast conflicting declarations and depositions
• Build Rule 56 arguments that preserve the case for trial
• Defend MSJs with evidence-based factual disputes

📌 Access litigation support at:

• legalhusk.com
• legalhusk.com/services
• legalhusk.com/services/civil-litigation
• legalhusk.com/about-us

Final Thoughts

Summary judgment is not the time to decide who’s telling the truth. If your case hinges on competing stories, the court must let a jury decide. Highlighting credibility disputes clearly and effectively can be the difference between dismissal and a day in court.

📩 Need help framing a credibility dispute to defeat summary judgment? Visit Legal Husk to purchase expert litigation documents and strategies that keep your case alive.