Vision Application: Fill & Download for Free

According to the leaked Whitepaper of Telegram Open Network (TON), the answer is “Yes”.“Integrated into Telegram applications, the TON-Telegram wallet will instantly become the world’s most adopted cryptocurrency wallet”With 200 million monthly active users and $1.7 billion raised through the ongoing ICO the chances are good, or are they?In this review we will have a look what has happened so far around the Telegram Open Network (TON) Coin Offering, what we already know and what remains uncertain. Before we have a look at the Team, Product, Technology and Investor Information, according to the Ultimate Guide how to review an ICO, let’s recap what happened so far:December 2017: it was first leaked that Telegram is working on their own blockchain platform Telegram Open Network (TON) including a native cryptocurrency called Gram.February 2018: Pavel Durov formed the TON Issuer Inc. and raised $850 million from 81 investors.April 2018: it has been reported, that Telegram raised another $850 million from 94 investors.Until today, the only official information available about Telegram’s ICO are these two documents filed with the SEC. You can have a look on it here (first private sale) and here (second private sale)Although these are the only official information out there, three other sources of with information were leaked, fueling speculations and discussion about Telegram’s plan in the crypto-world and beyond.There is a 1:50 minutes long video out there, supposedly the promo video of Telegram.A 23 pages long Whitepaper, you can have a look at here and a 132 pages Technical Whitepaper, here.This review will be a bit different to our others, since it is based on leaked information. However, after reading you will have a good overview about Telegram’s plans and my opinion on it.1. Team1.1 Track RecordThe brothers Nikolai und Pavel Durov are the heads behind Telegram Open Network (TON). Pavel’s entrepreneurial career started in 2006, when he launched VK — “Russia’s Facebook”.In April 2014, due to a fall-out with another major shareholder and a conflict with the Putin-led government, Pavel was forced to leave the company and resigned as the CEO. A main issue of this conflict was Pavels public refusal to hand over data of Ukrainian protesters to Russia’s security agencies. This conflict is still ongoing as Russia just recently banned Telegram as they refused again to give them access to their encryption keys.Mid 2014, Pavel left Russia with $300 million and 2,000 Bitcoins and bought the citizenship of St. Kitts and Nevis. At that time, the social network had 100 million active users, mainly from Russia and Ukraine. Ever since his ouster, he focussed on the launch of his next company — Telegram. Using his payout from VK, he completely self-funded Telegram until the latest cash injection of $1,7 billions from the already mentioned private sale.Pavels brother, Nikolai Durov is the technical brain behind Telegram and TON. He was the lead developer at VK and since 2013 the CTO at Telegram for which he developed the MTProto protocol. Nikolai is regarded as a mathematical and programming genius. He won several gold and silver medals in the International Mathematical Olympiad and International Olympiad in Informatics.In the leaked Whitepaper, which Nikolai is believed to be the author of, Telegram states that it“has a world-class team of 15 developers that were selected from thousands of contenders over the last ten years. To become part of the team, each of its current members had either to win in the world’s top programming contests or to take the first place in one of the nationwide multi-level coding competitions held by the founder of Telegram.”Furthermore, the Whitepaper claims that the core team members all worked before at VK, and that all networking, cryptographic, and database engine software running on Telegram servers is custom-built by these developers.Outside Telegram’s own perception on their skills and abilities, there are a whole range of critical voices among well known experts regarding the team.Nick Tomaino, Founder of 1confirmation who manages Peter Thiel’s and Marc Andreessen’s backed cryptocurrency fund said he will not invest into TON as he is skeptical that the team will be able to deliver on its promises.“The teams that will win are teams with deep historical context who have been tinkering with consensus mechanisms and scalability for several years. It’s more like science than entrepreneurship,…In my mind, [Telegram doesn’t] have the talent to do that.”1.2 AdvisorsIn the Whitepaper there are no advisors mentioned.1.3 InvestorsIn the two private funding rounds Telegram raised a total of $1.7 billion from 175 accredited investors, which makes by far the biggest ICO up to now.And the fundraising might not stop there.Telegram claims in the 2nd SEC filing, that “the issuers may pursue one or more subsequent offerings”. Thus, it will be interesting to see how much more money Telegram can raise from investors before launching a public sale (if there will be any at all).Although Telegram was able to raise this huge amount of money, it is noteworthy that the money came only from investors new to the crypto space. VC’s experienced in crypto all passed on Telegram.The ones participating include Silicon Valley giants such as Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Benchmark Capital, Sequoia Capital, and the investor Yuri Milner, according to the Financial TimesEarly investors in the cryptocurrency space, such as Union Square Ventures, Andreessen Horowitz, Greylock and Polychain Capital are not investing, as the New York Times reported.Given reasons from those not investing are mainly related to the huge scope of the project, tough competition and missing experience of the team in regards to blockchain technology.For the proponents, Telegram doesn’t face significant new technical challenges and is instead innovating by leveraging its user base of 200 million, building a consumer product to bring cryptocurrencies to the masses. These investors see the potential for Telegram to facilitate widespread adoption and own the decentralized application ecosystem. The project is bold, but the potential rewards if the it succeeds are immense.✅ Expertise in encrypted, distributed data storage✅ 10-year experience in building applications at scale✅ Experienced dealing with difficult situations✅ Strong support from established VC’s❌ Experienced crypto VC’s are sceptical regarding the team and overall feasibilityTeam Score: 32/402. ProductTelegram Open Network wants to do it all.It not just offers one product solving one problem, but tackles most of the biggest challenges many blockchain projects are working on since years.TON’s 4 main products include:TON Storage — the Decentralized DropboxTON Storage is a distributed file-storage technology, accessible through the TON P2P Network and available for storing arbitrary files, with torrent-like access technology and smart contracts used to enforce availability.TON Services — the Decentralized App StoreTelegram will offer a searchable registry of decentralized services from its applications, providing a list of the most popular apps, as well as recommendations based on the user’s history of choices. These steps can make Telegram a gateway to blockchain-based projects for the masses — similar to how Google Play and the App Store currently work for centralized applications.TON Payments — Micropayment CurrencyTON wants to solve all problems other cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum are still facing. Namely, speed and scalability that allows for processing millions of transactions per second and accommodating hundreds of millions of active users and millions of applications. And an intuitive user interfaces that enable an average user to easily buy, store, and transfer value, as well as use decentralized apps in a natural way.TON DNS — Decentralized WebTON DNS is a service for assigning human-readable names to accounts, smart contracts, services, and network nodes. With TON DNS, accessing decentralized services can be similar to viewing a website on the World Wide Web.Moreover, Telegram states that “all these services can be integrated with third-party messaging and social networking applications, uniting the centralized and the decentralized worlds.”Looking at Telegrams ambitious goals, it will be exciting to see if the intended scope of the project will make TON to one of the major players in the crypto world, setting up a new decentralized infrastructure and turning Telegram from a messaging app into a decentralized platform hosting a whole new wave of decentralized services. Or if they overstretched it.2.1 Value Proposition and USPOne of TONs biggest advantages over competitors in the blockchain sphere is its existing product, namely Telegram. With Telegram and their previous company VK, the Durov brothers achieved mass market adoption.The Telegram Team claims that they can “rely on its 10-year experience in building user-friendly interfaces for tens of millions to create light wallets, exchanges, and identification services that will allow users to get on board with cryptocurrencies in an intuitive way.”If they manage for their already existing 200 million users to “easily buy, store, and transfer value, as well as use decentralized apps in a natural way”, that will be their number one USP.But in order to solve this problem, TON needs to overcome the same challenges that big players like Bitcoin and Ethereum are trying to fix for years — insufficient speeds, high transaction costs, price volatility and therefore the demand for crypto-assets mainly coming from investors, not consumers.2.2 Competition and MarketSince Telegram wants it all, the range of competitors obviously is huge and widespread.In each area Telegram wants to tackle, there are already big players in the field, in and outside of the crypto world.TON StorageWith cloud storages run by Apple, Dropbox and Amazon this market is highly competitive.Competitors running decentralized services are not less active. Popular file storage services such as Storj, Sia and Filecoin are already in place with Filecoin conducting the largest ICO so far — raising $257 million.TON ServicesFunctionality and adoption of decentralized apps are still in their infancy. Ethereum as the biggest player out there in this field hosts more than 1.200 DApps running on the their blockchain (according to State of the ÐApps).Next to Ethereum other platforms like NEO, Lisk, EOS and Cardano are keeping strong competition alive.TON Payments — Micropayment CurrencyNo cryptocurrency went mainstream yet, and centralized solutions like Visa/Mastercard continue to dominate the market.In the blockchain space TON faces enormous competition of various coins, all striving to become the world’s most adopted currency and overcoming the still existing hurdles to outcompete centralized services.On top of this, Telegram also faces strong competition from their own ranks. Messaging platform and rival Kik wants to implement its own cryptocurrency and decentralized ecosystem of digital services for daily life. Kik has 300 million users and raised $100 million in their ICO conducted in September 2017.Whoever will solve the puzzle of being decentralized, secure, scalable and user friendly in the same time, will make the race in these areas.2.3 Traction & CommunityThis is TON’s biggest asset.With 200 million users, Telegram has a perfect starting position for testing its new decentralized services in an already existing ecosystem. Obviously, this increases its chances to get adoption by a critical mass. Telegram’s users will not have to go through a complicated process opening a new wallet and learning how to buy, store, and send their coins. Instead, the TON-Telegram wallet will instantly become their wallet within an environment users already know and feel comfortable with.Another big advantage of Telegram is its huge adaption from the global cryptocurrency community. Telegram is already the most used messaging app with 84 percent of blockchain-based projects having an active Telegram community — more than all other chat applications combined, as Telegram states in their Whitepaper.2.4 Bullshit BingoNo Bullshit Bingo possible since there are no official statements at all.✅ 200 million existing users✅ Proven ability to build user-friendly software for tens of millions✅ Great adoption by the crypto-community❌ Highly competitive market❌ Scope of the project is too bigProduct Score: 12/20⚙️ 3. Technology3.1 Technical SolutionIn the (short) Whitepaper of TON, an overview is given of which technology is applied:TON BlockchainAt the core of the platform is the TON Blockchain — a scalable and flexible blockchain architecture that consists of a master chain and up to 292 accompanying blockchains. Below are some notable design choices that allow the TON Blockchain to process millions of transactions per second.Infinite Sharding ParadigmTo achieve scalability, TON has built-in support for sharding: TON blockchains can automatically split and merge to accommodate changes in load. This means that new blocks are always generated quickly and the absence of long queues helps keep transaction costs low, even if some of the services using the platform become massively popular.Instant Hypercube RoutingTON blockchains use smart routing mechanisms to ensure that transactions between any two blockchains will always be processed swiftly, regardless of the size of the system. The time needed to pass information between TON blockchains grows logarithmically with their number, so scaling to even millions of chains will allow them all to communicate at top speed.Proof-of-Stake ApproachTON uses a Proof-of-Stake approach in which processing nodes («validators») deposit stakes to guarantee their dependability and reach consensus through a variant of the Byzantine Fault Tolerant protocol. This allows TON to focus the computing power of its nodes on handling transactions and smart contracts, further increasing speed and efficiency.2-D Distributed LedgersTON can «grow» new valid blocks on top of any blocks that were proven to be incorrect to avoid unnecessary forks. This self-healing mechanism saves resources and guarantees that valid transactions will not be discarded due to unrelated errors.The reactions to Telegrams claims in regards to the outline above and the more detailed Technical Whitepaper were mixed.Many cryptography and blockchain experts are sceptical about the feasibility of Telegram’s proposal. Critics state that it is short on technical details and missing explanations related to its implementation (e.g. no giving any description how they will be able to process millions of transactions per second).Other feedback points out that the outlined technologies in the Whitepaper aren’t currently deployed by other blockchain projects, so they will require some time for development and it is not clear yet if they are working.Coming from the opposite angle, other critical minds claim the lack of new technologies in the Whitepaper. The Verge interviewed Matthew Green, cryptographer and professor at Johns Hopkins University who said, that[… the white paper reads like someone went out on the internet and harvested the most ambitious ideas from a dozen projects and said ‘let’s do all of those but better!’ It feels unachievable, at least at the scale they’re aiming for now.”]The fact that Telegram will control a majority of its currency (52%) and therefore being a central authority until they change the distribution of their Grams is another point of criticism.Emin Gün Sirer, a professor at Cornell, expert on distributed systems said in an email to The Verge:“Yet Telegram ICO’s appeal stems from its reach to 200 million users, and its central vision over the future of the platform. If the owner folded, there would be little value to what remains. So their adoption of a blockchain, in fact, a whole family of blockchains, seems spurious.”Last but not least Telegram’s lack of openness is seen as a problem as well. Charles Noyes from Pantera Capital, which describes itself as the first US Bitcoin investment firm, declined to participate in the Telegram ICO, citing reservations about the project’s lack of transparency:“When you operate the way they do, which is closed, with secrecy, not subjecting yourself to peer review, you basically open yourself up to the possibility that there is a trivial bug in it that destroys the network.”Reviewing the feedback Telegram received, it is apparent that some of the criticism is contradictory itself (e.g. blaming Telegram for not providing innovative approaches vs. blaming them for using existing, but not yet tested concepts). Both will be hardly possible.We have to be patient to get a better idea if the technological scope of Telegram’s vision is feasible or not. Not just with TON, but for all blockchain projects out there it is not clear yet which set of technology will serve the crypto world best. Add to that the fact that the Durov brothers didn’t bother to respond to any of the received feedback yet.✅ 132 pages long Technical Whitepaper✅ Promising conjunction of several technological approaches (e.g. sharding, proof of stake etc.)❌ Usage of not yet successfully tested and implemented technologies❌ Lack of transparency❌ Centralized control from Telegram (at the start)Technology Score: 8/20️ 4. Investor Information4.1 Token Sale InformationYet, It is not clear if Telegram will offer any of its 5 billion Grams to the public during their ICO. Looking at the successful private sale so far it would be no wonder if Telegram sticks to this proven approach. Raising money from the public would be much more work as Telegram would have to go through a know-your-customer and anti-money laundering verification process with every investor.One point of criticism regarding the Token Sale is focussed on the huge discounts which Telegram apparently granted to early investors. Reports are circulating that some discounts exceed 70 percent of the final token price which already is driving early investors to sell their tokens to cash in.4.2 Usage of FundsTelegram states the following in the Whitepaper:Funds raised during the Telegram ICO will be used for the development of Telegram and TON and for the ongoing expenses required to support the growth of the ecosystem. More than 80 percent of collected funds will be spent on equipment, bandwidth, colocation, and user verification costs. The rest will be allocated for wages, offices, and legal and consulting services.4.3 Token DistributionThe TON Foundation wants to keep more than half of the tokens in their possession. In the Whitepaper it says, that “… at least 52 percent of the entire supply will be retained by the TON Reserve to protect the nascent cryptocurrency from speculative trading and to maintain flexibility at the early stages of the evolution of the system”.Telegram will reserve 4 percent for the developer team and the remaining 44 percent can be sold to investors.In regards to the Token Distribution, Telegram received most criticism for keeping the control of the majority of its currency — acting as a “benevolent dictator”, as some voices are claiming. This obviously contradicts with the idea of a decentralized system, but also gives Telegram the freedom to solve early stage problem way more easy.4.4 VestingTelegram states in the Whitepaper, that 4 percent of the supply (200 million Grams) will be reserved for the development team with a 4-year vesting period.With a current team of 15 developers and final public sale price targeted at $0.97 (according to the prospectus), this would make up nearly $13 million for each member over the whole vesting period.Since Telegram offers enormous discounts to early investors, there will be also a lock-up period in place for those who enjoyed the largest price deductions. According to an article in Techcrunch, this could range from three to 18 months dependent on the discount.✅ Investors and team are vested for a long period✅ Keeping 52% gives Telegram control to improve the product as they please❌ Keeping 52% means no decentralization (at the start)❌ Very high compensation for the Telegram team❌ Huge discounts offered for big investors, driving early speculationsInvestor Score: 8/20⚗️ ConclusionTelegram proposed an impressive plan how to establish the first mass-market cryptocurrency and build a whole decentralized ecosystem around their messaging app.The vision is big and the potential for a cryptocurrency inside an established app used by more than 200 millions is definitely enormous. Having a working product in place isn’t something many blockchain projects can claim for themselves and gives Telegram huge leverage.The team of Telegram is well experienced, working together since more than 10 years and knows how to deal with difficult situations.However, for the huge scope of the project the existing team of 15 people seems pretty small and competitors in the crypto space have much more experience working with blockchain technologies, consensus mechanisms and scalability. Furthermore, Telegram is entering a highly competitive market with strong players in the field.When is comes to the technological feasibility of Telegram`s vision, opinions are sharply divided between those who praise Telegrams Whitepaper and its proposed solutions and critics who state that neither are their concepts new, nor are the mentioned ones yet successfully tested. Overall, many critics find the Whitepaper lacking in technical details.The perception within the venture capital world is also divided. While traditional venture capitalists see in TON a good entry gate into the crypto-economy, venture firms that did several crypto investments in the past are more sceptical about Telegram`s approach and rather stay away from the hyped ICO. Nonetheless, Telegram already raising $1.7 billion remains a strong statement on its own.Until we see the first tangible results still some time will pass. Telegram plans the launch of its wallet in the end of 2018 and for the beginning of 2019 the implementation of TON Services, TON Storage, and TON Proxy. By 2021, Telegram plans to step back and rename TON to ON with the network managed by its foundation.So, a lot of time for having more debates and speculations about this project.

$500 Billion Opportunity for Artificial Intelligence via Banking Industry — BloombergBanks play a very crucial role in the improvement of the monetary existence of contemporary society. It today’s the lifeblood of today’s world economy because it handles cash, credits, and other monetary transactions. Banks help customers to music their fees over financial savings and motivates them to store money and earn a hobby for a safe destiny. This encouragement, in turn, enables the banks to provide financial help to the growth of large industries.The banking enterprise plays any such main role inside the improvement of the global economy it’s miles very important that each and every economic transaction done through the banks need to be documented. To do this, the banks use computers, wherein they have got a detailed report of their databases.The most essential part of this enterprise is Artificial Intelligence in banking. It has a profound impact whilst machine learning in the banking industry can engage with people through making decisions and in a convincing manner encourage clients. The essential aim of getting Artificial Intelligence inside the banking enterprise is to get insight into the customers’ preferences, to make certain that the clients from the services furnished with the aid of the banks and to help the customers apprehend their expectations from the banks.Recently growing of online security threats in banking transactions has tightened government policies. Though these rules are useful to screen online financial transactions, it has curbed banks’ functionality to maintain up with digital transformation.In Recents policy, banks are unable to invest in technology, as they’ve to hold capital adequacy ratio as in step with global regulatory framework guidelines. Thus, banks fall prey to the competition posed with the aid of nimble Financial Technology (FinTech) players, which do not have to hold capital adequacy ratio.According to the World Retail Banking Report of 2016 (Globally the retail analytics market is expected to grow at a CAGR 19.1%), about half of the clients around the sector have stated an expanded probability to switch their banks with top players. — 1010data (U.S.), BRIDGEi2i (India), Diaspark (U.S.), Fujitsu (Japan), IntelliVision (U.S.), IBM (U.S.), Microsoft(U.S.), Oracle (U.S.), RetailNext (U.S.), SAP (Germany), SAS Institute (U.S.), Trax (Singapore), Visual BI Solutions (U.S.), and Zebra Technologies (U.S.), and NEC Display Solutions of America, Inc. (U.S.)Artificial Intelligence is the destiny of banking because it brings the electricity of advanced records analytics to combat fraudulent transactions and improve compliance. AI set of rules accomplishes anti-cash laundering sports in a few seconds, which otherwise take hours and days.AI also permits banks to manage large volumes of data at report velocity to derive treasured insights from it. Features together with AI bots, digital payment advisers and bio-metric fraud detection mechanisms lead to higher nice of services to a wider purchaser base. All this translates to multiplied revenue, reduced fees and an increase in profits.AI will no longer best empower banks by automating its understanding workforce, it will additionally make the whole manner of automation intelligent enough to cast off cyber dangers and opposition from FinTech players. AI, indispensable to the bank’s tactics and operations, and continues evolving and innovating with time without sizable manual intervention.AI will permit banks to leverage human and system talents to power operational and cost efficiencies, and deliver personalized services. Advantages are not a futuristic vision to do for banks. By adopting AI, leaders in the banking region have already taken actions with due diligence to gain those advantages.Top Trends approximately figure out towards the AI opportunity throughout the economic services enterprise keep to proliferate amid significant hype around the technology, and for top reason: The mixture capacity value savings for banks from AI packages is at $459 billion by way of 2023, with the front and center office accounting for $435 billion of that total, in line with Autonomous Next research seen by using StraitsResearch Intelligence.Some Facts That are Leading towards the growth of AI in the Banking Sector.Trends to read out — Growth in quantum computers could spur the development of new breakthroughs in science, medications to save lives, machine learning methods to diagnose illnesses, materials to make more efficient devices and structures, financial strategies, and algorithms to quickly direct resources such as ambulances. In light of the benefits of technology, the global quantum computing market is anticipated to witness significant growth during the forecast period.Trend 2 to read out — The global kiosk market is constantly growing and is expected to register a CAGR of 6.9% during the forecast period 2019–2026.Trend 3 to read out — The IoT in the banking and financial services market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 28.9% during the forecast period, 2019–2026.Trend 4 to read out — Global reconciliation software in the banking market by on cloud deployment is expected to grow at CAGR 13.12% during the forecast period 2019–2026.Most banks (80%) are privy to the capacity advantages presented via AI, in line with an OpenText survey of financial services professionals. In fact, many banks are making plans to deploy solutions enabled with the aid of AI: 75% of respondents at banks with over $120 billion in assets say they may be currently implementing AI techniques, compared with 46% at banks with less than $110 billion in property, in step with a UBS Evidence Lab record visible through StraitsResearch Statement.Certain AI use cases have already won prominence throughout banks’ operations, with chatbots inside the front workplace and anti-payments fraud within the center workplace the most mature.In this record, StraitsResearch identifies the most meaningful AI programs across banks’ front and central offices. We also speak the prevailing AI techniques used by using monetary establishments so far and provide hints for a way banks can the first-class method an AI-enabled digital transformation.One of the demanding situations for policymakers, especially in international locations like India, is to make sure that new innovations inside the banking area serve the customer by lowering the price of monetary offerings and improving the variety and get admission to products in a manner that is safe.While synthetic intelligence hasn’t reshaped consumer-facing functions in banking (at the least relative to other carrier industries), it has revolutionized so-referred to as center workplace capabilities.The middle office is in which banks manage hazards and guard themselves against bad actors. That includes fraud detection, anti-money laundering tasks, and know-your-customer identification verification. And every now and then meaning incorporating AI into legacy, rules-based anti-fraud structures.Even although most banks put into effect fraud detection protocols, identification robbery and fraud still value American consumers billions of dollars every year.As cyber-cheats end up sophisticated (manipulating identity records through account takeovers, exploiting cloud server IP addresses), financial establishments look to AI for help. DataVisor’s device mastering uses huge information and so-called clustering algorithms in actual time to counteract application and transaction fraud. The employer touts a 94 percentage fraud detection price and claims a pinnacle 15 U.S. bank among its clients.Customer revel in influence each business within the world, which include the banking industry. The customer enjoys affects the manner people understand an organization. Especially in the case of banks, human beings want to get entry to their money 24/7 and they want speedy and smooth transactions as well. This is wherein AI chatbots and voice assistants play their role. Chatbots don’t follow any timezone which allows users to get admission to them anytime, anywhere in the international.The most vital characteristic of those chatbots is that they’re getting to know through previous client interactions which in turn facilitates beautify them and their consumer provider. An instance of chatbots in banking is the virtual assistant of Bank of America, Erica. Erica sends notifications to their clients, updates users about their credit rankings and enables them to pay bills and make transactions.Apart from chatbots, banks are also using humanoids. Pepper, that’s a humanoid developed via SoftBank, is one such instance. Through the usage of AI, customer experience is better which in turn will increase revenue.The application eventualities of AI technology are many and do no longer just encompass the introduction of specific device learning or deep studying systems, structures or algorithms. It is above all the inclusion and symbolization of those new tools within the organizational dynamics and existing technological shape that makes the difference.The AI module, included with the proprietary systems, makes it workable to make the most of the information already to be had to the financial institution, to ease and speed up strategic decisions and to improve investments.By exploiting artificial intelligence, the financial institution can be capable to:> Ensure an even greater personalized approach to the patron that doesn’t exclude the human touch.> Preserve investments way to immediately integration with omnichannel technology.> Enjoy a virtual transformation that involves all financial institution stakeholders, from control to the customer.> Generate and the increasing number of confidence in a brand this is being renewed through that specialize in a smart, albeit simple approach.

Rule 56. Summary JudgmentPrimary tabs(a) Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment. 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 dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion.(b) Time to File a Motion. Unless 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.(c) Procedures.(1) Supporting Factual Positions. A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.(2) Objection That a Fact Is Not Supported by Admissible Evidence. 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.(3) Materials Not Cited. The court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record.(4) Affidavits or Declarations. An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.(d) When Facts Are Unavailable to the Nonmovant. If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may:(1) defer considering the motion or deny it;(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or(3) issue any other appropriate order.(e) Failing to Properly Support or Address a Fact. 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(c), the court may:(1) give an opportunity to properly support or address the fact;(2) consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion;(3) grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials — including the facts considered undisputed — show that the movant is entitled to it; or(4) issue any other appropriate order.(f) Judgment Independent of the Motion. After giving notice and a reasonable time to respond, the court may:(1) grant summary judgment for a nonmovant;(2) grant the motion on grounds not raised by a party;or(3) consider summary judgment on its own after identifying for the parties material facts that may not be genuinely in dispute.(g) Failing to Grant All the Requested Relief. 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 in dispute and treating the fact as established in the case.(h) Affidavit or Declaration Submitted in Bad Faith. If satisfied that an affidavit or declaration 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.(As amended Dec. 27, 1946, eff. Mar. 19, 1948; Jan. 21, 1963, eff. July 1, 1963; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007; Mar. 26, 2009, eff. Dec. 1, 2009; Apr. 28, 2010, eff. Dec. 1, 2010.)Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1937This rule is applicable to all actions, including those against the United States or an officer or agency thereof.Summary judgment procedure is a method for promptly disposing of actions in which there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. It has been extensively used in England for more than 50 years and has been adopted in a number of American states. New York, for example, has made great use of it. During the first nine years after its adoption there, the records of New York county alone show 5,600 applications for summary judgments. Report of the Commission on the Administration of Justice in New York State (1934), p. 383. See also Third Annual Report of the Judicial Council of the State of New York (1937), p. 30.In England it was first employed only in cases of liquidated claims, but there has been a steady enlargement of the scope of the remedy until it is now used in actions to recover land or chattels and in all other actions at law, for liquidated or unliquidated claims, except for a few designated torts and breach of promise of marriage. English Rules Under the Judicature Act (The Annual Practice, 1937) O. 3, r. 6; Orders 14, 14A, and 15; see also O. 32, r. 6, authorizing an application for judgment at any time upon admissions. In Michigan (3 Comp.Laws (1929) §14260) and Illinois (Ill.Rev.Stat. (1937) ch. 110, §§181, 259.15, 259.16), it is not limited to liquidated demands. New York (N.Y.R.C.P. (1937) Rule 113; see also Rule 107) has brought so many classes of actions under the operation of the rule that the Commission on Administration of Justice in New York State (1934) recommend that all restrictions be removed and that the remedy be available “in any action” (p. 287). For the history and nature of the summary judgment procedure and citations of state statutes, see Clark and Samenow, The Summary Judgment (1929), 38 Yale L.J. 423.Note to Subdivision (d). See Rule 16 (Pre-Trial Procedure; Formulating Issues) and the Note thereto.Note to Subdivisions (e) and (f). These are similar to rules in Michigan. Mich.Court Rules Ann. (Searl, 1933) Rule 30.Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1946 AmendmentSubdivision (a). The amendment allows a claimant to move for a summary judgment at any time after the expiration of 20 days from the commencement of the action or after service of a motion for summary judgment by the adverse party. This will normally operate to permit an earlier motion by the claimant than under the original rule, where the phrase “at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been served” operates to prevent a claimant from moving for summary judgment, even in a case clearly proper for its exercise, until a formal answer has been filed. Thus in Peoples Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (N.D.Cal. 1944) 58 F.Supp. 25, the plaintiff's counter-motion for a summary judgment was stricken as premature, because the defendant had not filed an answer. Since Rule 12(a) allows at least 20 days for an answer, that time plus the 10 days required in Rule 56(c) means that under original Rule 56(a) a minimum period of 30 days necessarily has to elapse in every case before the claimant can be heard on his right to a summary judgment. An extension of time by the court or the service of preliminary motions of any kind will prolong that period even further. In many cases this merely represents unnecessary delay. See United States v. Adler's Creamery, Inc. (C.C.A.2d, 1939) 107 F.(2d) 987. The changes are in the interest of more expeditious litigation. The 20-day period, as provided, gives the defendant an opportunity to secure counsel and determine a course of action. But in a case where the defendant himself serves a motion for summary judgment within that time, there is no reason to restrict the plaintiff and the amended rule so provides.Subdivision (c). The amendment of Rule 56(c), by the addition of the final sentence, resolves a doubt expressed in Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp. (1944) 321 U.S. 620. See also Commentary, Summary Judgment as to Damages (1944) 7 Fed.Rules Serv. 974; Madeirense Do Brasil S/A v. Stulman-Emrick Lumber Co. (C.C.A.2d, 1945) 147 F.(2d) 399, cert. den. (1945) 325 U.S. 861. It makes clear that although the question of recovery depends on the amount of damages, the summary judgment rule is applicable and summary judgment may be granted in a proper case. If the case is not fully adjudicated it may be dealt with as provided in subdivision (d) of Rule 56, and the right to summary recovery determined by a preliminary order, interlocutory in character, and the precise amount of recovery left for trial.Subdivision (d). Rule 54(a) defines “judgment” as including a decree and “any order from which an appeal lies.” Subdivision (d) of Rule 56 indicates clearly, however, that a partial summary “judgment” is not a final judgment, and, therefore, that it is not appealable, unless in the particular case some statute allows an appeal from the interlocutory order involved. The partial summary judgment is merely a pretrial adjudication that certain issues shall be deemed established for the trial of the case. This adjudication is more nearly akin to the preliminary order under Rule 16, and likewise serves the purpose of speeding up litigation by eliminating before trial matters wherein there is no genuine issue of fact. See Leonard v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. (C.C.A.7th, 1942) 130 F.(2d) 535; Biggins v. Oltmer Iron Works (C.C.A.7th, 1946) 154 F.(2d) 214; 3 Moore's Federal Practice (1938). 3190–3192. Since interlocutory appeals are not allowed, except where specifically provided by statute (see 3 Moore, op. cit. supra, 3155–3156) this interpretation is in line with that policy, Leonard v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., supra. See also Audi Vision Inc., v. RCA Mfg. Co. (C.C.A.2d, 1943) 136 F.(2d) 621; Toomey v. Toomey (App.D.C. 1945) 149 F.(2d) 19; Biggins v. Oltmer Iron Works, supra; Catlin v. United States (1945) 324 U.S. 229.Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1963 AmendmentSubdivision (c). By the amendment “answers to interrogatories” are included among the materials which may be considered on motion for summary judgment. The phrase was inadvertently omitted from the rule, see 3 Barron & Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure 159–60 (Wright ed. 1958), and the courts have generally reached by interpretation the result which will hereafter be required by the text of the amended rule. See Annot., 74 A.L.R.2d 984 (1960).Subdivision (e). The words “answers to interrogatories” are added in the third sentence of this subdivision to conform to the amendment of subdivision (c).The last two sentences are added to overcome a line of cases, chiefly in the Third Circuit, which has impaired the utility of the summary judgment device. A typical case is as follows: A party supports his motion for summary judgment by affidavits or other evidentiary matters sufficient to show that there is no genuine issue as to a material fact. The adverse party, in opposing the motion, does not produce any evidentiary matter, or produces some but not enough to establish that there is a genuine issue for trial. Instead, the adverse party rests on averments of his pleadings which on their face present an issue. In this situation Third Circuit cases have taken the view that summary judgment must be denied, at least if the averments are “well-pleaded,” and not suppositious, conclusory, or ultimate. See Frederick Hart & Co., Inc. v. Recordgraph Corp., 169 F.2d 580 (3d Cir. 1948); United States ex rel. Kolton v. Halpern, 260 F.2d 590 (3d Cir. 1958); United States ex rel. Nobles v. Ivey Bros. Constr. Co., Inc., 191 F.Supp. 383 (D.Del. 1961); Jamison v. Pennsylvania Salt Mfg. Co., 22 F.R.D. 238 (http://W.D.Pa. 1958); Bunny Bear, Inc. v. Dennis Mitchell Industries, 139 F.Supp. 542 (http://E.D.Pa. 1956); Levy v. Equitable Life Assur. Society, 18 F.R.D. 164 (E.D.Pa. 1955).The very mission of the summary judgment procedure is to pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial. The Third Circuit doctrine, which permits the pleadings themselves to stand in the way of granting an otherwise justified summary judgment, is incompatible with the basic purpose of the rule. See 6 Moore's Federal Practice 2069 (2d ed. 1953); 3 Barron & Holtzoff, supra, §1235.1.It is hoped that the amendment will contribute to the more effective utilization of the salutary device of summary judgment.The amendment is not intended to derogate from the solemnity of the pleadings. Rather it recognizes that, despite the best efforts of counsel to make his pleadings accurate, they may be overwhelmingly contradicted by the proof available to his adversary.Nor is the amendment designed to affect the ordinary standards applicable to the summary judgment motion. So, for example: Where an issue as to a material fact cannot be resolved without observation of the demeanor of witnesses in order to evaluate their credibility, summary judgment is not appropriate. Where the evidentiary matter in support of the motion does not establish the absence of a genuine issue, summary judgment must be denied even if no opposing evidentiary matter is presented. And summary judgment may be inappropriate where the party opposing it shows under subdivision (f) that he cannot at the time present facts essential to justify his opposition.Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1987 AmendmentThe amendments are technical. No substantive change is intended.Committee Notes on Rules—2007 AmendmentThe language of Rule 56 has been amended as part of the general restyling of the Civil Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to be stylistic only.Former Rule 56(a) and (b) referred to summary-judgment motions on or against a claim, counterclaim, or crossclaim, or to obtain a declaratory judgment. The list was incomplete. Rule 56 applies to third-party claimants, intervenors, claimants in interpleader, and others. Amended Rule 56(a) and (b) carry forward the present meaning by referring to a party claiming relief and a party against whom relief is sought.Former Rule 56(c), (d), and (e) stated circumstances in which summary judgment “shall be rendered,” the court “shall if practicable” ascertain facts existing without substantial controversy, and “if appropriate, shall” enter summary judgment. In each place “shall” is changed to “should.” It is established that although there is no discretion to enter summary judgment when there is a genuine issue as to any material fact, there is discretion to deny summary judgment when it appears that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Kennedy v. Silas Mason Co., 334 U.S. 249, 256 –257 (1948). Many lower court decisions are gathered in 10A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil 3d, §2728. “Should” in amended Rule 56(c) recognizes that courts will seldom exercise the discretion to deny summary judgment when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Similarly sparing exercise of this discretion is appropriate under Rule 56(e)(2). Rule 56(d)(1), on the other hand, reflects the more open-ended discretion to decide whether it is practicable to determine what material facts are not genuinely at issue.Former Rule 56(d) used a variety of different phrases to express the Rule 56(c) standard for summary judgment—that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Amended Rule 56(d) adopts terms directly parallel to Rule 56(c).Committee Notes on Rules—2009 AmendmentThe timing provisions for summary judgment are outmoded. They are consolidated and substantially revised in new subdivision (c)(1). The new rule allows a party to move for summary judgment at any time, even as early as the commencement of the action. If the motion seems premature both subdivision (c)(1) and Rule 6(b) allow the court to extend the time to respond. The rule does set a presumptive deadline at 30 days after the close of all discovery.The presumptive timing rules are default provisions that may be altered by an order in the case or by local rule. Scheduling orders are likely to supersede the rule provisions in most cases, deferring summary-judgment motions until a stated time or establishing different deadlines. Scheduling orders tailored to the needs of the specific case, perhaps adjusted as it progresses, are likely to work better than default rules. A scheduling order may be adjusted to adopt the parties’ agreement on timing, or may require that discovery and motions occur in stages—including separation of expert-witness discovery from other discovery.Local rules may prove useful when local docket conditions or practices are incompatible with the general Rule 56 timing provisions.If a motion for summary judgment is filed before a responsive pleading is due from a party affected by the motion, the time for responding to the motion is 21 days after the responsive pleading is due.Committee Notes on Rules—2010 AmendmentRule 56 is revised to improve the procedures for presenting and deciding summary-judgment motions and to make the procedures more consistent with those already used in many courts. The standard for granting summary judgment remains unchanged. The language of subdivision (a) continues to require that there be no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The amendments will not affect continuing development of the decisional law construing and applying these phrases.Subdivision (a). Subdivision (a) carries forward the summary-judgment standard expressed in former subdivision (c), changing only one word — genuine “issue” becomes genuine “dispute.” “Dispute” better reflects the focus of a summary-judgment determination. As explained below, “shall” also is restored to the place it held from 1938 to 2007.The first sentence is added to make clear at the beginning that summary judgment may be requested not only as to an entire case but also as to a claim, defense, or part of a claim or defense. The subdivision caption adopts the common phrase “partial summary judgment” to describe disposition of less than the whole action, whether or not the order grants all the relief requested by the motion.“Shall” is restored to express the direction to grant summary judgment. The word “shall” in Rule 56 acquired significance over many decades of use. Rule 56 was amended in 2007 to replace “shall” with “should” as part of the Style Project, acting under a convention that prohibited any use of “shall.” Comments on proposals to amend Rule 56, as published in 2008, have shown that neither of the choices available under the Style Project conventions — “must” or “should” — is suitable in light of the case law on whether a district court has discretion to deny summary judgment when there appears to be no genuine dispute as to any material fact. Compare Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (“Neither do we suggest that the trial courts should act other than with caution in granting summary judgment or that the trial court may not deny summary judgment in a case in which there is reason to believe that the better course would be to proceed to a full trial. Kennedy v. Silas Mason Co., 334 U.S. 249 * * * (1948)),” with Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (“In our view, the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.”). Eliminating “shall” created an unacceptable risk of changing the summary-judgment standard. Restoring “shall” avoids the unintended consequences of any other word.Subdivision (a) also adds a new direction that the court should state on the record the reasons for granting or denying the motion. Most courts recognize this practice. Among other advantages, a statement of reasons can facilitate an appeal or subsequent trial-court proceedings. It is particularly important to state the reasons for granting summary judgment. The form and detail of the statement of reasons are left to the court’s discretion.The statement on denying summary judgment need not address every available reason. But identification of central issues may help the parties to focus further proceedings.Subdivision (b). The timing provisions in former subdivisions (a) and (c) are superseded. Although the rule allows a motion for summary judgment to be filed at the commencement of an action, in many cases the motion will be premature until the nonmovant has had time to file a responsive pleading or other pretrial proceedings have been had. Scheduling orders or other pretrial orders can regulate timing to fit the needs of the case.Subdivision (c). Subdivision (c) is new. It establishes a common procedure for several aspects of summary-judgment motions synthesized from similar elements developed in the cases or found in many local rules.Subdivision (c)(1) addresses the ways to support an assertion that a fact can or cannot be genuinely disputed. It does not address the form for providing the required support. Different courts and judges have adopted different forms including, for example, directions that the support be included in the motion, made part of a separate statement of facts, interpolated in the body of a brief or memorandum, or provided in a separate statement of facts included in a brief or memorandum.Subdivision (c)(1)(A) describes the familiar record materials commonly relied upon and requires that the movant cite the particular parts of the materials that support its fact positions. Materials that are not yet in the record — including materials referred to in an affidavit or declaration — must be placed in the record. Once materials are in the record, the court may, by order in the case, direct that the materials be gathered in an appendix, a party may voluntarily submit an appendix, or the parties may submit a joint appendix. The appendix procedure also may be established by local rule. Pointing to a specific location in an appendix satisfies the citation requirement. So too it may be convenient to direct that a party assist the court in locating materials buried in a voluminous record.Subdivision (c)(1)(B) recognizes that a party need not always point to specific record materials. One party, without citing any other materials, may respond or reply that materials cited to dispute or support a fact do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute. And a party who does not have the trial burden of production may rely on a showing that a party who does have the trial burden cannot produce admissible evidence to carry its burden as to the fact.Subdivision (c)(2) provides that a party may object that material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence. The objection functions much as an objection at trial, adjusted for the pretrial setting. The burden is on the proponent to show that the material is admissible as presented or to explain the admissible form that is anticipated. There is no need to make a separate motion to strike. If the case goes to trial, failure to challenge admissibility at the summary-judgment stage does not forfeit the right to challenge admissibility at trial.Subdivision (c)(3) reflects judicial opinions and local rules provisions stating that the court may decide a motion for summary judgment without undertaking an independent search of the record. Nonetheless, the rule also recognizes that a court may consider record materials not called to its attention by the parties.Subdivision (c)(4) carries forward some of the provisions of former subdivision (e)(1). Other provisions are relocated or omitted. The requirement that a sworn or certified copy of a paper referred to in an affidavit or declaration be attached to the affidavit or declaration is omitted as unnecessary given the requirement in subdivision (c)(1)(A) that a statement or dispute of fact be supported by materials in the record.A formal affidavit is no longer required. 28 U.S.C. § 1746 allows a written unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement subscribed in proper form as true under penalty of perjury to substitute for an affidavit.Subdivision (d). Subdivision (d) carries forward without substantial change the provisions of former subdivision (f).A party who seeks relief under subdivision (d) may seek an order deferring the time to respond to the summary-judgment motion.Subdivision (e). Subdivision (e) addresses questions that arise when a party fails to support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c). As explained below, summary judgment cannot be granted by default even if there is a complete failure to respond to the motion, much less when an attempted response fails to comply with Rule 56(c) requirements. Nor should it be denied by default even if the movant completely fails to reply to a nonmovant’s response. Before deciding on other possible action, subdivision (e)(1) recognizes that the court may afford an opportunity to properly support or address the fact. In many circumstances this opportunity will be the court’s preferred first step.Subdivision (e)(2) authorizes the court to consider a fact as undisputed for purposes of the motion when response or reply requirements are not satisfied. This approach reflects the “deemed admitted” provisions in many local rules. The fact is considered undisputed only for purposes of the motion; if summary judgment is denied, a party who failed to make a proper Rule 56 response or reply remains free to contest the fact in further proceedings. And the court may choose not to consider the fact as undisputed, particularly if the court knows of record materials that show grounds for genuine dispute.Subdivision (e)(3) recognizes that the court may grant summary judgment only if the motion and supporting materials — including the facts considered undisputed under subdivision (e)(2) — show that the movant is entitled to it. Considering some facts undisputed does not of itself allow summary judgment. If there is a proper response or reply as to some facts, the court cannot grant summary judgment without determining whether those facts can be genuinely disputed. Once the court has determined the set of facts — both those it has chosen to consider undisputed for want of a proper response or reply and any that cannot be genuinely disputed despite a procedurally proper response or reply — it must determine the legal consequences of these facts and permissible inferences from them.Subdivision (e)(4) recognizes that still other orders may be appropriate. The choice among possible orders should be designed to encourage proper presentation of the record. Many courts take extra care with pro se litigants, advising them of the need to respond and the risk of losing by summary judgment if an adequate response is not filed. And the court may seek to reassure itself by some examination of the record before granting summary judgment against a pro se litigant.Subdivision (f). Subdivision (f) brings into Rule 56 text a number of related procedures that have grown up in practice. After giving notice and a reasonable time to respond the court may grant summary judgment for the nonmoving party; grant a motion on legal or factual grounds not raised by the parties; or consider summary judgment on its own. In many cases it may prove useful first to invite a motion; the invited motion will automatically trigger the regular procedure of subdivision (c).Subdivision (g). Subdivision (g) applies when the court does not grant all the relief requested by a motion for summary judgment. It becomes relevant only after the court has applied the summary-judgment standard carried forward in subdivision (a) to each claim, defense, or part of a claim or defense, identified by the motion. Once that duty is discharged, the court may decide whether to apply the summary-judgment standard to dispose of a material fact that is not genuinely in dispute. The court must take care that this determination does not interfere with a party’s ability to accept a fact for purposes of the motion only. A nonmovant, for example, may feel confident that a genuine dispute as to one or a few facts will defeat the motion, and prefer to avoid the cost of detailed response to all facts stated by the movant. This position should be available without running the risk that the fact will be taken as established under subdivision (g) or otherwise found to have been accepted for other purposes.If it is readily apparent that the court cannot grant all the relief requested by the motion, it may properly decide that the cost of determining whether some potential fact disputes may be eliminated by summary disposition is greater than the cost of resolving those disputes by other means, including trial. Even if the court believes that a fact is not genuinely in dispute it may refrain from ordering that the fact be treated as established. The court may conclude that it is better to leave open for trial facts and issues that may be better illuminated by the trial of related facts that must be tried in any event.Subdivision (h). Subdivision (h) carries forward former subdivision (g) with three changes. Sanctions are made discretionary, not mandatory, reflecting the experience that courts seldom invoke the independent Rule 56 authority to impose sanctions. See Cecil & Cort, Federal Judicial Center Memorandum on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (g) Motions for Sanctions (April 2, 2007). In addition, the rule text is expanded to recognize the need to provide notice and a reasonable time to respond. Finally, authority to impose other appropriate sanctions also is recognized.Changes Made After Publication and CommentSubdivision (a): “[S]hould grant” was changed to “shall grant.”“[T]he movant shows that” was added.Language about identifying the claim or defense was moved up from subdivision (c)(1) as published.Subdivision (b): The specifications of times to respond and to reply were deleted.Words referring to an order “in the case” were deleted.Subdivision (c): The detailed “point-counterpoint” provisions published as subdivision (c)(1) and (2) were deleted.The requirement that the court give notice before granting summary judgment on the basis of record materials not cited by the parties was deleted.The provision that a party may accept or dispute a fact for purposes of the motion only was deleted.Subdivision (e): The language was revised to reflect elimination of the point-counterpoint procedure from subdivision (c). The new language reaches failure to properly support an assertion of fact in a motion.Subdivision (f): The provision requiring notice before denying summary judgment on grounds not raised by a party was deleted.Subdivision (h): Recognition of the authority to impose other appropriate sanctions was added.Other changes: Many style changes were made to express more clearly the intended meaning of the published proposal.‹ Rule 55. Default; Default Judgment up Rule 57. Declaratory Judgment ›