Luke Waid v. Darnell Earley, 960 F.3d 820

Consolidated Flint Water Cases: Plaintiffs sued state and private actors over the Flint water crisis; former Governor Rick Snyder and former Treasurer Andy Dillon were sued on a single surviving §1983 "bodily-integrity" claim after many other claims were dismissed.
District court denied Snyder’s and Dillon’s motions to dismiss on qualified-immunity grounds for the bodily-integrity claim, then entered a case-management and discovery plan.
The district court stayed discovery as to the claim on which Snyder and Dillon asserted immunity but allowed limited discovery of Snyder and Dillon as non-party fact witnesses concerning separate claims against other defendants (e.g., Veolia).
Snyder and Dillon moved for a protective order to block non-party depositions pending exhaustion of all appeals on qualified immunity; the district court denied the protective order and depositions were noticed.
Snyder and Dillon appealed the denial of the protective order to the Sixth Circuit and sought a stay of the non-party depositions pending appeal; the Sixth Circuit denied the stay and dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a stay of non-party depositions pending appeal should issue	Snyder & Dillon: Qualified immunity bars all discovery until appeals of denial of immunity are exhausted	Plaintiffs/Veolia: District court lawfully limited discovery; non-party depositions are permissible and necessary	Stay denied — appellants unlikely to succeed; limited non-party discovery may proceed
Whether treating Snyder & Dillon as non-party fact witnesses violates qualified immunity	Snyder & Dillon: Non-party depositions are an end-run around immunity and unduly burdensome	Plaintiffs/Veolia: Qualified immunity protects only from discovery on the immunity claim; testimony about separate claims does not implicate immunity	Denied — district court balanced immunity interest and allowed limited non-party discovery; appellants can raise specific objections later
Whether the denial of a protective order is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine	Snyder & Dillon: Denial of protective order is effectively denial of qualified immunity and thus immediately appealable	Plaintiffs/Veolia: Discovery rulings are non-final and not collateral-order appealable	Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — discovery orders are not transformed into an immediate qualified-immunity appeal here

Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (establishes that qualified immunity is immunity from suit and supports interlocutory appeals from denials of immunity)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity protects officials from broad-reaching discovery burdens)
Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (trial courts must protect substance of qualified immunity by limiting unnecessary discovery)
Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (qualified immunity is a right to immunity from certain claims, not from litigation generally)
McLaurin v. Morton, 48 F.3d 944 (denial of immunity on one claim may still permit discovery on others)
Skousen v. Brighton High Sch., 305 F.3d 520 (appealability where summary-judgment motion on immunity was held in abeyance but order functioned as denial)
Everson v. Leis, 556 F.3d 484 (similar to Skousen: jurisdiction where delay of summary judgment effectively denied immunity)
Sinclair v. Schriber, 834 F.2d 103 (distinguishes two interlocutory appeals available re immunity: after motion to dismiss and after summary judgment)
Kennedy v. City of Cleveland, 797 F.2d 297 (district courts should stay discovery when a motion to dismiss on immunity is pending)
Criss v. City of Kent, 867 F.2d 259 (scope of discovery is within district court discretion)
Coleman v. American Red Cross, 979 F.2d 1135 (discovery orders typically are non-appealable)