Deferring a ruling on a summary judgment motion based on qualified immunity until after the close of ordered discovery; FedRCivP 56(d); Summers v Leis

The court vacated the district court’s order delaying a ruling on qualified immunity, concluding it could not find the district court correctly determined that a ruling on the summary judgment motion could not be made without further discovery. Because the error effectively denied qualified immunity, the court had jurisdiction to correct it. Plaintiff-Smith’s son (Irwin) urinated in public after leaving a hospital. Defendant-Officer Davis pursued and tackled him, resulting in Irwin’s permanent incapacitation. Smith (Irwin’s guardian) sued alleging excessive force and Ohio state-law torts. Although Davis answered the complaint, neither he nor his employers responded to Smith’s discovery requests. Rather, they immediately moved to stay discovery and for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court denied the stay, “ordered further discovery, and deferred ruling on the summary judgment motion until after the close of discovery.” The court noted the summary judgment record contained a video (without audio) and an affidavit from Davis explaining his version of events. It also noted that district courts cannot avoid ruling on a qualified immunity motion “‘by simply ordering further discovery. … If qualified immunity is properly raised prior to discovery, the district court has a duty to address it.’” A delay on the motion for summary judgment is proper after the district court reviews the record and determines that further discovery is warranted because material disputed facts exist. Here, while “the district court identified ‘some differences’ between the parties’ accounts of the interaction, it expressly disclaimed finding or intending to find any genuine dispute of material fact. And it appeared to consider only some of the facts available to it. In particular, its order makes no mention of the video evidence. That” was significant for the court’s decision “because unambiguous videos can prevent a district court from finding that a genuinely disputed material fact makes summary judgment inappropriate.” The court declined Davis’s request to reach the merits of his qualified immunity claim. Remanded.