American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Inc. v. City of Sarasota, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10807

ACLU of Florida sought 34 state-court applications and orders for cell-site tracking devices from Michael Jackson, a Sarasota police detective, under Florida’s public-records law.
At a status conference, federal counsel asserted Jackson had acted as a Special Deputy U.S. Marshal when he created/submitted/maintained those documents; the state court dismissed the ACLU’s petition on that basis.
The United States removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) (federal-officer removal). The ACLU moved to remand and sought jurisdictional discovery about Jackson’s capacity when handling the records.
The magistrate judge denied the ACLU’s discovery requests; the district court instead served its own interrogatories to Jackson limited to two of the 34 applications.
Jackson replied that all applications were submitted at the direction of the U.S. Marshals Service but provided detailed information for only two, and one answer identified him as a Sarasota detective—creating a factual inconsistency.
The district court concluded federal jurisdiction existed and denied further jurisdictional discovery; the ACLU appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ACLU was entitled to jurisdictional discovery about Jackson’s capacity	ACLU: jurisdictional facts are genuinely disputed and intertwined with merits; it should get discovery to prove Jackson acted as a state officer	Government/Jackson: representations and Jackson’s responses suffice to show federal-officer status; further discovery unnecessary	Reversed: ACLU should have been permitted jurisdictional discovery because factual dispute was genuine and intertwined with merits
Whether limited interrogatories from the court cured the denial of party discovery	ACLU: court questions were too narrow (only 2 of 34) and could not resolve inconsistency; parties must be allowed to probe facts	Court/Government: interrogatories provided sufficient information to determine jurisdiction	Held: interrogatories were insufficient; district court abused discretion by denying party discovery
Whether ACLU unduly delayed in seeking jurisdictional discovery	Government: denial was justified if ACLU delayed seeking discovery	ACLU: filed first discovery motion ~two weeks after removal; no undue delay	Held: no undue delay; denial on that ground improper

Butler v. Sukhoi Co., 579 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for jurisdictional discovery)
Eaton v. Dorchester Dev., Inc., 692 F.2d 727 (11th Cir.) (parties have a qualified right to jurisdictional discovery when facts are genuinely in dispute)
Univ. of S. Alabama v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir.) (district court must inquire into subject-matter jurisdiction early)
Fitzgerald v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., 760 F.2d 1249 (11th Cir.) (district court obligation to resolve factual jurisdictional disputes)
Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (U.S.) (discovery by parties to ascertain facts bearing on jurisdiction endorsed)
Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (U.S.) (jurisdictional facts may be intertwined with merits)
Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Collins, 921 F.2d 1237 (11th Cir.) (plaintiff must have opportunity to present evidence on jurisdiction)
Lowery v. Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir.) (recognizing jurisdictional discovery availability in federal-question context)
Posner v. Essex Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir.) (denial of discovery proper where plaintiffs unreasonably delayed)
Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121 (U.S.) (federal-officer removal requires a colorable federal defense)