A party moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication must also support the motion with a separate statement that sets forth plainly and concisely all material facts that the moving party contends are undisputed, and each of these material facts must be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 437c(b)(1).)

A separate statement is required to afford due process to the opposing party and to permit the judge to expeditiously review the motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication to determine quickly and efficiently whether material facts are disputed. (Parkview Villas Ass'n, Inc. v State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1210; United Community Church v Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327, 335.) The separate statement should include only material facts--ones that could make a difference to the disposition of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1350(f)(3); Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1350(a)(2).)

“The Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in support of a motion must separately identify:

1. Each cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion; and
2. Each supporting material fact claimed to be without dispute with respect to the cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion.”

(Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1350(d)(1).)

“Both the court and the opposing party are entitled to have all the facts upon which the moving party bases its motion plainly set forth in the separate statement.” (United Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327, 337; Department of General Services v. Super. Ct. (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 273, 284.) “The burdens imposed upon the trial court will be eased considerably if the court insists, as it should, on strict compliance with the required separate statement, because the court's ability to focus on and articulate the evidentiary basis for its ruling will be found in the separate statement. (North Coast Business Park v. Nielsen Construction Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 22, 31.)

“‘The separate statement is not merely a technical requirement, it is an indispensible part of the summary judgment or adjudication process. ‘Separate statements are required not to satisfy a sadistic urge to torment lawyers, but rather to afford due process to opposing parties and to permit trial courts to expeditiously review complex motions for... summary judgment to determine quickly and efficiently whether material facts are disputed.’” (Kojababian v. Genuine Home Loans, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 408, 415-416.)

The court has discretion to consider evidence presented outside of the separate statement. (San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 316.) “This is the Golden Rule of Summary Adjudication: if it is not set forth in the separate statement, it does not exist. Both the Court and the opposing party are entitled to have all the facts upon which the moving party bases its motion plainly set forth in the separate statement.” (United Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327, 337.) (1997) 52 Ca.4th 732, 740.)

The failure to comply with the separate statement requirement is a sufficient basis to deny the motion for summary adjudication. (Truong v. Glasser (2009) 181 Cal.App.4th 102, 118.)