Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Summary Judgment Motion
12 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Summary Judgment MotionQuestion 1 of 12

In a federal negligence action, the defendant moved for summary judgment on the issues of duty and breach, but not on causation or damages. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could dispute that the defendant owed and breached a duty, but that genuine disputes exist on causation and damages.

What may the court properly do?

Deny the entire motion, because summary judgment is available only when the entire claim can be resolved.
Grant the motion as to duty and breach, and order that those issues are established for trial while the remaining issues proceed.
Grant the motion and enter judgment for the defendant on the entire claim, because the duty and breach elements are dispositive.
Deny the motion but state in a pretrial order that duty and breach are no longer in dispute; that order is not binding at trial.
← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Summary Judgment Motion

Practice Summary Judgment Motion in Bar Exam (Next Generation) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Summary Judgment Motion, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Next Generation).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

In a federal negligence action, the defendant moved for summary judgment on the issues of duty and breach, but not on causation or damages. The court concluded that no reasonable jury could dispute that the defendant owed and breached a duty, but that genuine disputes exist on causation and damages.

What may the court properly do?

  1. Deny the entire motion, because summary judgment is available only when the entire claim can be resolved.
  2. Grant the motion as to duty and breach, and order that those issues are established for trial while the remaining issues proceed. (correct answer)
  3. Grant the motion and enter judgment for the defendant on the entire claim, because the duty and breach elements are dispositive.
  4. Deny the motion but state in a pretrial order that duty and breach are no longer in dispute; that order is not binding at trial.
Explanation: Whenever you see a summary judgment motion that asks about only some elements of a claim, think partial summary judgment. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a party may move for summary judgment as to part of a claim, so the court need not resolve the entire case at once. Here, the court found that no reasonable jury could dispute duty or breach, while causation and damages remain genuinely disputed. Because duty and breach are discrete elements fully resolved as a matter of law, the court may grant the motion as to those issues only, ordering them established for trial while causation and damages proceed. That is exactly what the correct answer describes, and it respects the case's remaining factual disputes. The choice saying the entire motion must be denied because summary judgment only resolves whole claims misunderstands Rule 56—partial summary judgment is expressly permitted. The choice granting judgment for the defendant on the entire claim is wrong because causation and damages are still contested, so the defendant is not entitled to final judgment. Finally, the choice denying the motion but issuing a nonbinding pretrial order is too cautious: when an issue is genuinely undisputed, the court may enter a binding summary-judgment determination, not merely a nonbinding note. Study tip: when you see summary judgment, ask "which issues are truly undisputed?" The court can slice off those issues and leave the disputed ones for trial.

Question 2

A defendant moved for summary judgment in a federal breach-of-contract action. The motion was supported by the defendant's sworn declaration and email exchanges showing that the parties never agreed on a price. The plaintiff, who is represented, filed no response. The defendant asked the court to grant the motion.

How should the court proceed?

  1. Grant the motion, because the plaintiff's failure to respond means every fact asserted by the defendant is deemed admitted and judgment is automatic.
  2. Grant the motion, because the defendant's motion and supporting materials show no genuine dispute and the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (correct answer)
  3. Deny the motion, because summary judgment cannot be granted without an opposing response or an oral hearing.
  4. Deny the motion, because a represented party's failure to respond must be treated as a request for additional time to conduct discovery.
Explanation: Whenever you see a summary judgment question, remember that the court's role is to determine whether the moving party has met its burden under Rule 56—not to penalize the nonmoving party for silence. The critical distinction is between facts being undisputed and judgment being automatic. Here, the court should grant the motion because the defendant's motion and supporting materials show no genuine dispute and the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The defendant submitted a sworn declaration and email exchanges establishing that the parties never agreed on a price, an essential element of a breach-of-contract claim. Because the plaintiff filed no response, the court may treat the defendant's facts as undisputed under Rule 56(e). Since those undisputed facts show no contract was formed, there is no genuine issue for trial, and the defendant wins as a matter of law. Now consider the wrong answers. The choice stating that the plaintiff's failure to respond means every fact is "deemed admitted and judgment is automatic" is a trap—Rule 56(e) permits the court to deem facts undisputed, but it does not mandate an automatic grant; the court must still independently find that the movant is entitled to judgment on the law. The choice saying the motion must be denied because summary judgment cannot be granted without an opposing response or an oral hearing is wrong; neither a response nor a hearing is a prerequisite. Finally, the choice suggesting that a represented party's failure to respond "must be treated as a request for additional time" misstates the rule—a party seeking more discovery must file an affidavit under Rule 56(d), and silence is not an implicit request. Study tip: On the MBE, when a nonmovant fails to respond, check whether the movant's own evidence would support judgment. If yes, grant it; if not, deny it—even if the nonmovant is silent.

Question 3

A former employee sued her employer in federal court for race discrimination. The employer moved for summary judgment, submitting evidence that the employee was fired for violating the attendance policy. In opposition, the employee submitted her own declaration stating: "I believe the attendance reason was a pretext, because my supervisor had never liked me. On information and belief, my supervisor told human resources that he wanted me fired because of my race." The employer objected to the declaration.

How should the court treat the employee's declaration?

  1. Consider the entire declaration, because a nonmoving party's own sworn statement is enough to create a genuine dispute about the employer's motive.
  2. Consider only the statement about the supervisor's dislike, because it is based on personal knowledge, and disregard the remaining statements.
  3. Disregard the conclusory and speculative statements, including those based only on belief or information and belief, and grant summary judgment if no admissible evidence remains to support pretext. (correct answer)
  4. Disregard the entire declaration because the employee's assertion of pretext is a legal conclusion that cannot be considered on summary judgment.
Explanation: Whenever you see a summary-judgment question involving a party's own declaration, focus on evidence rules: a sworn declaration can oppose summary judgment only if it contains admissible evidence—personal knowledge and concrete facts, not conclusions or speculation. The court disregards inadmissible portions, then asks whether admissible evidence creates a genuine dispute. Here, the declaration mixes one potentially usable fact—the supervisor had never liked her—with two inadmissible assertions: her belief that the attendance reason was pretext, and an "on information and belief" statement about what the supervisor told HR. The belief is conclusory; the HR statement lacks personal knowledge and is hearsay. So the court should disregard those speculative statements and grant summary judgment if no admissible evidence remains to prove the attendance reason was a pretext for race discrimination. That is the correct treatment. The "consider the entire declaration" choice is wrong because a declaration is not automatically admissible merely because it is sworn. The "consider only the dislike statement" choice is close but incomplete: that bare statement does not connect dislike to race, and it does not by itself create a genuine dispute on pretext; the court must still decide whether any admissible evidence remains. The "disregard the entire declaration" choice goes too far—the court may consider the personal-knowledge portion even though it rejects the conclusory parts. Strategy: in every summary-judgment question, separate admissible facts from conclusory beliefs. Only the facts count.

Question 4

A plaintiff sued a drug manufacturer in federal court for products liability. Before any depositions had been taken, the manufacturer moved for summary judgment, submitting an expert report concluding that the drug does not cause the plaintiff's injury. The plaintiff's brief in opposition stated that discovery was not complete, that she had not yet deposed the manufacturer's expert, and that she needed discovery to respond. The plaintiff did not submit an affidavit or declaration in support of that request.

Should the court deny or defer the manufacturer's motion to allow the plaintiff more discovery?

  1. Yes, because a party is entitled to reasonable discovery before summary judgment may be granted.
  2. Yes, because the plaintiff's brief sufficiently identifies the discovery needed and why it matters.
  3. No, because the plaintiff failed to show by affidavit or declaration the specific reasons she cannot present facts essential to her opposition. (correct answer)
  4. No, because the defendant's expert report is conclusive and the plaintiff cannot create a genuine dispute without expert testimony.
Explanation: Whenever you see a motion for summary judgment opposed on the ground that discovery is incomplete, your focus should be Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). That rule allows a court to defer or deny summary judgment, but only if the nonmoving party "shows by affidavit or declaration" the specific facts needed for further discovery and why those facts are essential. Here, the plaintiff's brief merely stated that discovery was incomplete and that she had not deposed the expert. That is an unsworn assertion, not the required affidavit or declaration, and it lacks specific reasons tying the needed discovery to her opposition. So the court should deny her request for more discovery, not because the expert report is conclusive, but because she failed to make the procedural showing Rule 56(d) demands. The first wrong answer, "a party is entitled to reasonable discovery before summary judgment," overstates the right: discovery is not automatic, and Rule 56(d) requires a proper showing. The second wrong answer, that the brief "sufficiently identifies the discovery needed," misses the rule's form requirement—a brief cannot substitute for an affidavit or declaration. The final wrong answer, that the expert report is "conclusive" and the plaintiff needs expert testimony, misstates summary judgment law: an expert report is not automatically dispositive, and genuine disputes can sometimes be shown through other evidence. Your takeaway: when opposing summary judgment for lack of discovery, file a sworn Rule 56(d) affidavit or declaration, not just a lawyer's argument in a brief.

Question 5

A seller moved for summary judgment on liability in a federal breach-of-contract action. The seller submitted an affidavit and email exchanges showing that the buyer accepted delivery and failed to pay the agreed price. The buyer's response said only that the jury might not believe the seller's witnesses and that the buyer would present a different account at trial. The buyer submitted no evidence.

Should the court grant the seller's motion?

  1. No, because the court must deny any summary judgment motion that turns on witness credibility.
  2. No, because the seller has the burden of proof and must establish every element at trial, not on summary judgment.
  3. Yes, because the buyer's assertion that the jury might disbelieve the seller's evidence does not create a genuine dispute of material fact. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, because the buyer's failure to submit an opposing affidavit is an admission of the seller's factual assertions.
Explanation: When you see a summary judgment question, ask: has the movant met its initial burden, and has the non-movant produced specific, admissible evidence creating a genuine dispute? Here, the seller met its burden with an affidavit and emails. The buyer's response is pure conjecture — claiming the jury might disbelieve the seller's witnesses and promising a different account at trial. Under Rule 56, a non-movant must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue; conclusory assertions and promises of future testimony do not suffice. Thus, the court correctly grants summary judgment. Why is this right? Because the buyer offered no evidence at all to contradict the seller's proof. A mere assertion that a jury might disbelieve the seller's evidence is not a factual dispute — it's speculation about credibility without supporting facts. The wrong choices: The claim that "the court must deny any summary judgment motion that turns on witness credibility" is wrong because the court only defers to credibility when there is conflicting evidence — here, there is none. The claim that "the seller has the burden of proof and must establish every element at trial, not on summary judgment" is wrong because summary judgment exists to avoid trial when no genuine dispute exists; the seller met its burden by showing no dispute. Finally, the claim that "the buyer's failure to submit an opposing affidavit is an admission" is wrong — a failure to file an affidavit isn't an admission; the court independently examines the movant's evidence. The buyer's real error was submitting no evidence and making only conclusory statements. Study tip: On the bar, never let a party survive summary judgment by merely saying "the jury won't believe them." Look for a specific factual contradiction backed by admissible evidence.

Question 6

A defendant moved for summary judgment in a federal action on a breach-of-contract claim, arguing that no contract was formed. The court concluded that the defendant was correct on that claim. The court also noticed that the plaintiff's separate fraud claim, which was not mentioned in any summary judgment motion, was unsupported by any evidence in the record.

What may the court do with respect to the fraud claim?

  1. Enter summary judgment on the fraud claim immediately, because the court may grant summary judgment on any claim supported by the record.
  2. Enter summary judgment on the fraud claim only if the plaintiff fails to object within a reasonable time.
  3. Not enter summary judgment on the fraud claim, because a court may not grant summary judgment without a motion.
  4. Provide notice to the parties and a reasonable time to respond, and then may enter summary judgment on the fraud claim. (correct answer)
Explanation: Whenever you see a court acting on its own initiative without a motion, you are in the realm of sua sponte action. For summary judgment, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 specifically allows a court to grant summary judgment on its own, but it must first give the parties notice and a reasonable time to respond. Here, the court correctly noticed the fraud claim lacked evidentiary support. Because the record shows no genuine dispute, the court may enter summary judgment on that claim, but it cannot do so without first notifying the parties and giving them a chance to present their side—this procedural safeguard protects due process. The first choice, entering summary judgment immediately, is wrong because it skips the mandatory notice and response period. The second choice, entering judgment only if the plaintiff fails to object, is also wrong because the court must proactively provide notice and a reasonable time to respond before acting, not wait for the plaintiff to object to a judgment that hasn't been entered. The third choice, refusing to enter summary judgment because no motion was filed, is a classic trap—while courts usually act on motions, Rule 56 explicitly authorizes sua sponte summary judgment. Remember the key phrase: notice and a reasonable time to respond. When you see a court trying to act on its own, the answer will almost always depend on whether those safeguards are present.

Question 7

An employee sued her employer in federal court for wrongful termination, alleging retaliation for reporting safety violations. The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no evidence the termination was retaliatory. In opposition, the employee submitted an affidavit from a co-worker, who stated: "The plant manager told me, 'I fired her because she filed that safety report.'" The employer objected that the plant manager's statement is hearsay.

How should the court rule on the employer's objection?

  1. Sustain the objection, because an affidavit must be based on the affiant's personal knowledge and the co-worker did not participate in the firing decision.
  2. Sustain the objection, because the plant manager's out-of-court statement cannot be used to prove the reason for the firing.
  3. Overrule the objection, because all evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party at the summary judgment stage.
  4. Overrule the objection, because the plant manager's statement is an opposing party's statement and is therefore not hearsay. (correct answer)
Explanation: Whenever you see a hearsay objection to an affidavit at summary judgment, separate the admissibility question from the personal-knowledge question. The key is that not every out-of-court statement is hearsay: an opposing party's own statement is excluded from the hearsay definition. Here the plant manager told the co-worker, "I fired her because she filed that safety report." That statement is offered against the employer, and the manager was an employee/agent speaking about a matter within the scope of his employment—the reason for a termination decision. Under the Federal Rules, this qualifies as an opposing party's statement and is therefore not hearsay. So the objection should be overruled. The co-worker's affidavit also satisfies Rule 56's personal-knowledge requirement: he personally heard the manager make the statement. He does not need to have participated in the firing decision itself—he is testifying to what was said, not independently to why she was fired. So the choice arguing personal knowledge/failure to participate is wrong. The choice saying the manager's statement cannot be used to prove the reason for firing is wrong because this rule expressly permits it. Finally, the idea that evidence is simply viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party is a true summary-judgment principle, but it does not override hearsay or admissibility rules; the statement is admissible anyway. For your study: when you see an out-of-court statement made by the opposing party or its agent/employee within scope, do not reflexively call it hearsay—it is an opposing party's statement and can defeat that objection.

Question 8

A plaintiff sued a landlord in federal court for negligence after a stairway railing broke. The landlord moved for summary judgment, arguing that the railing was not defective. In opposition, the plaintiff presented evidence that the railing was loose. The plaintiff also conceded that, under the applicable local housing code, the landlord had no duty to maintain the railing unless it was load-bearing. The parties did not dispute that the railing was non-load-bearing.

Should the court grant the landlord's motion?

  1. Yes, because the only disputed fact is not material to the landlord's duty under the governing law. (correct answer)
  2. No, because summary judgment may not be granted when the nonmoving party has come forward with some evidence.
  3. No, because the loose railing is a disputed fact that a jury must resolve.
  4. Yes, because the plaintiff failed to submit an expert report showing that the railing was defective.
Explanation: When a summary judgment motion asks whether a fact is "disputed," the real question is whether that fact is material — that is, whether it could affect the outcome under the governing substantive law. Here, the applicable housing code imposes a duty to maintain railings only if they are load-bearing. Both parties agree the railing is non-load-bearing. The plaintiff's evidence that the railing was loose may create a factual dispute, but that dispute cannot change the result: because no duty exists, the landlord is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That is why the court should grant the motion. The answer choice saying "the only disputed fact is not material to the landlord's duty" captures this precisely. The trap in the choice that says "summary judgment may not be granted when the nonmoving party has come forward with some evidence" is that it ignores materiality — a mere scintilla of evidence on an immaterial fact does not defeat summary judgment. Similarly, the choice that says "the loose railing is a disputed fact that a jury must resolve" confuses factual disputes with material ones; juries decide disputes that matter. Finally, the choice about an "expert report" is a red herring — there is no requirement for expert testimony to prove a railing is loose, and the issue is duty, not defect. For the bar exam, always separate disputed from material. Ask: even if the plaintiff proves every disputed fact, can the defendant still win on the law? If yes, summary judgment is proper.

Question 9

In a federal products liability action, the plaintiff claimed that a prescription drug caused her liver injury. The defendant moved for summary judgment for lack of causation. The plaintiff's only evidence was an affidavit from her treating physician, who stated: "It is possible that the drug caused the plaintiff's injury; the drug is known to cause liver problems in some patients, but I cannot say to a reasonable degree of medical probability whether it did so here."

How should the court rule?

  1. Deny the motion, because the physician's affidavit must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and a reasonable jury could rely on it.
  2. Deny the motion, because the defendant, as the party moving for summary judgment, has the burden of proving that the drug did not cause the injury.
  3. Grant the motion, because the physician's affidavit is not based on personal knowledge, since the physician did not conduct a causal investigation.
  4. Grant the motion, because the physician's statement that the drug was a possible cause is too speculative to allow a reasonable jury to find causation. (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests whether a physician's affidavit can create a genuine issue of material fact on causation at summary judgment. In a federal products-liability case involving a prescription drug, a plaintiff must prove medical causation to a reasonable degree of medical probability—that the drug more likely than not caused the injury. A statement that something is merely "possible" is speculative and cannot support a reasonable jury verdict. Here, the treating physician affidavit says only that it is possible the drug caused plaintiff's injury because the drug can cause liver problems, and it expressly disclaims an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical probability. That is the fatal gap: a jury would need to guess whether causation actually occurred, and speculation is not enough. Because plaintiff has no admissible evidence from which a reasonable jury could find actual causation, court should grant summary judgment. Why the other choices fail? The choice saying deny because the affidavit must be viewed in the light most favorable confuses the summary-judgment standard: favorable inferences apply only to reasonable, non-speculative evidence, not to bare possibility. The choice saying deny because defendant has burden of proving non-causation misstates burdens: defendant movant only must show no genuine issue of material fact; plaintiff still bears trial burden on causation and must produce sufficient evidence once challenged. The choice granting summary judgment because affidavit lacks personal knowledge since physician did not investigate causation is also flawed:a treating physician may have personal knowledge from treatment; the actual defect is not failure to investigate, but failure to state causation to a degree of medical probability. Study tip: on causation questions, watch for "possible" versus "probable." An expert who says a drug "could have" caused an injury cannot survive summary judgment unless he or she also says, to reasonable medical probability, that it actually did so.

Question 10

A customer slipped and fell on a banana peel in a grocery store aisle and sued the store in federal court for negligence. The customer's complaint alleged that the store failed to inspect the aisle and thus had constructive notice of the spill. The store moved for summary judgment, submitting the customer's deposition, in which she testified that she had no idea how long the banana peel had been on the floor. In opposition, the customer relied only on the allegations in her complaint and argued that the presence of the banana peel supports an inference of constructive notice.

How should the court rule on the store's motion?

  1. Grant the motion, because the customer has not designated specific evidence from which a reasonable jury could find constructive notice. (correct answer)
  2. Grant the motion, because a defendant moving for summary judgment is entitled to judgment unless the plaintiff files an opposing affidavit.
  3. Deny the motion, because the court must draw all reasonable inferences in the customer's favor, including that the peel had been on the floor long enough to be discovered.
  4. Deny the motion, because the store, as the party moving for summary judgment, bears the burden of disproving constructive notice.
Explanation: Whenever you see a summary-judgment question, think about the burden shift under FRCP 56. After the store moved for summary judgment and pointed to the customer's deposition, she could not rest on her complaint's allegations; she needed to designate specific evidence showing a genuine dispute of material fact. . On constructive notice, the customer bears the burden of proving the banana peel had been there long enough that the store should have discovered it. Her deposition admission—that she had no idea how long the peel was there—does not satisfy that burden, and a banana peel's mere presence does not by itself support a reasonable inference of duration. Therefore, summary judgment is proper. The answer suggesting the motion beats automatically unless she files an opposing affidavit is wrong: the summary-judgment rules allow opposition through depositions, documents, and other evidence, but she offered none. The answer saying the court must draw inferences in her favor, including that the peel had been on the floor long enough, conflates a reasonable inference with speculation—courts draw inferences from evidence, not from bare allegations. The answer saying the store bears the burden of disproving constructive notice is also wrong: she, not the store, has the burden of proof on that element, and the store may prevail by showing an absence of evidence supporting her claim. On the exam, watch for the distinction between pleading-stage allegations and evidence needed at summary judgment.

Question 11

A plaintiff was injured in a collision at an intersection and sued the defendant driver in federal court for negligence. At his deposition, the plaintiff testified, "I did not see the defendant's car before impact; I was looking down at my phone." The defendant moved for summary judgment. In opposition, the plaintiff submitted his own affidavit stating, "I saw the defendant's car enter the intersection against a red light just before the collision." The affidavit did not explain the inconsistency with the deposition.

Which of the following best describes the court's proper course?

  1. Consider the affidavit, because a nonmoving party's affidavit may create a genuine dispute and credibility is for the jury.
  2. Disregard the affidavit, because it directly contradicts the plaintiff's prior deposition without explanation, leaving no genuine dispute. (correct answer)
  3. Consider the affidavit only if the plaintiff was not represented by counsel at the deposition and can show the earlier testimony was mistaken.
  4. Strike the deposition, because a party cannot be bound by a mistake made during discovery and the later affidavit should control.
Explanation: When a summary judgment motion arises, a common trap is thinking that any credibility dispute must go to the jury. But in this area, a nonmoving party cannot create a genuine issue of material fact by submitting an affidavit that flatly contradicts the party's own prior deposition testimony, unless the contradiction is explained—for example, by showing mistake, confusion, or a gap in memory. Here, the plaintiff's affidavit says he saw the defendant run a red light, directly contradicting his deposition admission that he never saw the defendant's car because he was looking at his phone. The affidavit offers no explanation for the inconsistency. Under the "sham affidavit" rule, the court should disregard that affidavit and grant summary judgment because the plaintiff has not introduced admissible evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute for trial. The choice saying the court should consider the affidavit because credibility is for the jury misunderstands the rule: credibility is normally a jury question, but a party cannot manufacture a credibility issue by contradicting sworn deposition testimony without explanation. The choice limiting admissibility to cases where the plaintiff lacked counsel at the deposition is also wrong; the relevant question is whether the discrepancy is explained, not whether representation existed. Finally, the choice urging the court to strike the deposition gets things backward—depositions are legitimate evidence, and a later affidavit does not automatically override them. Remember the key exam pattern: when a later affidavit directly contradicts earlier sworn testimony, look for an explanation. If none exists, the affidavit should be disregarded on summary judgment.

Question 12

A defendant in a federal action filed a motion for summary judgment 45 days after the close of all discovery. No local rule or court order set a different deadline. The plaintiff moved to strike the motion as untimely.

How should the court rule on the plaintiff's motion to strike?

  1. Grant it, because the motion was filed after the 30-day period following the close of all discovery. (correct answer)
  2. Deny it, because the 30-day period after discovery is a default deadline that the court may extend and the motion causes no prejudice.
  3. Deny it, because a motion for summary judgment may be filed at any time before trial, even after discovery closes.
  4. Grant it, because a motion for summary judgment must be filed before discovery closes, not after.
Explanation: Timing questions for a motion for summary judgment in federal court turn on Rule 56(b): unless a local rule or court order sets a different time, a party may file the motion "at any time until 30 days after the close of all discovery." Here, no local rule or court order changed that default, and the defendant filed 45 days after discovery closed—outside the 30-day window. The plaintiff's motion to strike should therefore be granted as untimely. The first wrong choice argues for denying the motion because the 30-day default could be extended and no prejudice resulted. But the deadline is not self-extending: without a prior court order or local rule setting a different deadline, a late filing is simply late, and lack of prejudice does not make it timely. The next wrong choice claims a summary judgment motion may be filed at any time before trial, even after discovery closes. That misstates the rule, which imposes a specific 30-day limit after discovery. The final wrong choice swings the other way, arguing the motion had to be filed before discovery closed. In fact, Rule 56(b) expressly allows filing during the 30 days after discovery closes. A useful study habit: whenever you see summary-judgment timing on the exam, immediately recite the Rule 56(b) formula—"30 days after close of all discovery, unless a local rule or court order says otherwise." That one phrase will resolve most timing traps.