Oregon summary judgment: 60 days before trial, and a standard written into the rule
Oregon procedure · Last verified August 17, 2026
Oregon fixes its whole summary-judgment schedule in the rule and, unusually, writes the substantive standard into it rather than leaving it to case law.
The schedule
ORCP 47 C:
The motion and all supporting documents must be served and filed at least 60 days before the date set for trial. The adverse party shall have 20 days in which to serve and file opposing affidavits or declarations and supporting documents. The moving party shall have five days to reply. The court shall have discretion to modify these stated times.
Three numbers, and note what they are anchored to. The 60 days runs backward from trial; the 20 and the 5 run forward from the preceding filing. That is a hybrid — California runs everything backward from the hearing, Texas now runs everything forward from filing, and Oregon does one of each.
Who may move, and when
A claimant — ORCP 47 A: may move "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," with or without supporting affidavits, as to all or any part of any claim or defense.
A defending party — ORCP 47 B: may move "at any time," with or without supporting affidavits.
The 20-day waiting period for a claimant is shorter than Georgia's 30 days and California's 60.
The standard is in the rule
ORCP 47 C continues:
The court shall grant the motion if the pleadings, depositions, affidavits, declarations, and admissions on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. No genuine issue as to a material fact exists if, based on the record before the court viewed in a manner most favorable to the adverse party, no objectively reasonable juror could return a verdict for the adverse party on the matter that is the subject of the motion.
Most systems leave "genuine issue" to be defined by case law. Oregon states the test — an objectively reasonable juror — in the rule itself.
The burden allocation is also express:
The adverse party has the burden of producing evidence on any issue raised in the motion as to which the adverse party would have the burden of persuasion at trial. The adverse party may satisfy the burden of producing evidence with an affidavit or a declaration under section E of this rule.
That sentence does what the federal courts arrived at through case law: it puts the production burden on the non-movant for the issues it would have to prove.
The subsection closes by allowing interlocutory summary judgment on liability alone although there is a genuine issue as to the amount of damages.
Affidavits, and the ORCP 47 E escape
ORCP 47 D: supporting and opposing affidavits and declarations must be made on personal knowledge, set forth facts admissible in evidence, and show affirmatively that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify — except as ORCP 47 E provides.
ORCP 47 E is Oregon's distinctive provision, and it opens by stating its own purpose:
Motions under this rule are not designed to be used as discovery devices to obtain the names of potential expert witnesses or to obtain their facts or opinions. If a party, in opposing a motion for summary judgment, is required to provide the opinion of an expert to establish a genuine issue of material fact, an affidavit or a declaration of the party's attorney stating that an unnamed, qualified expert has been retained who is available and willing to testify to admissible facts or opinions creating a question of fact will be deemed sufficient to controvert the allegations of the moving party and an adequate basis for the court to deny the motion.
The rule then guards against abuse of the device. The affidavit "must be made in good faith based on admissible facts or opinions obtained from a qualified expert who has actually been retained by the attorney, who is available and willing to testify, and who has actually rendered an opinion or provided facts that, if revealed by affidavit, would be a sufficient basis for denying the motion."
So in a case requiring expert proof, the non-movant can raise a fact question without disclosing the expert's identity or opinions — provided the expert genuinely exists and has genuinely opined. No other system this site covers has an equivalent.
And when you don't yet have the evidence at all — ORCP 47 F. Where it appears from the opposing party's affidavits that the party cannot, for reasons stated, present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may take the steps the section provides — Oregon's counterpart to FRCP 56(d).
No resting on the pleadings — ORCP 47 D. When a motion is made and supported as the rule provides, "an adverse party may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of that party's pleading; rather, the adverse party's response … must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue as to any material fact for trial. If the adverse party does not so respond, the court shall grant the motion, if appropriate."
Where discovery fits
Oregon's discovery rules make the summary-judgment record look different from a federal one. There are no interrogatories — ORCP 36 A lists depositions, document production, physical and mental examinations, and requests for admission, and nothing else. The materials ORCP 47 C names as the summary- judgment record — "pleadings, depositions, affidavits, declarations, and admissions on file" — reflect that: interrogatory answers aren't listed because they don't exist.
The discovery guide covers what that means for building a case.
How Oregon compares
| Oregon | Washington | California | Texas (amended 166a) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Motion filed | 60 days before trial | 28 calendar days before the hearing | 81 days' notice before the hearing | any time; hearing set 35–60 days after filing |
| Opposition | 20 days after the motion | 11 days before the hearing | 20 days before the hearing | 21 days after the motion is filed |
| Reply | 5 days | 5 days before the hearing | 11 days before the hearing | 7 days after the response |
| Court may modify | expressly, ORCP 47 C | by leave | for good cause | on leave or agreement |
| Standard defined in the rule | yes — objectively reasonable juror | no | no | no |
| Expert affidavit without naming the expert | yes — ORCP 47 E | no | no | no |
| Ruling deadline | none | none | none | 90 days |
A short checklist
- Work backward from the trial date — 60 days is the anchor, and it is the one date that can trip a motion on timing alone.
- Calendar 20 days for the response and 5 for the reply from the preceding filing.
- Ask the court to modify the times if you need to — ORCP 47 C expressly gives it discretion.
- If you are opposing and the issue needs expert proof, consider ORCP 47 E before assembling a full expert declaration.
- Build the record from depositions, documents and admissions. There are no interrogatory answers to cite.
- Address the production burden directly on any issue you would have to prove at trial — ORCP 47 C places it on you.
Where these rules live
- ORCP 21 — Defenses and Objections
- ORCP 36 — General Provisions Governing Discovery
- ORCP 39 — Depositions on Oral Examination
- ORCP 43 — Production of Documents and Things
- ORCP 45 — Requests for Admission
- ORCP 47 — Summary Judgment
- ORCP 71 — Relief from Judgment or Order
The Oregon Judicial Department publishes court information at courts.oregon.gov. Circuit courts have supplementary local rules on motion practice. This page explains what the rules say. It isn't legal advice.