Michael Costa v. the County of Ventura, 680 F. App'x 545

Devon Costa’s estate and parents sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law after an officer shot Costa; the Estate alleges excessive force because Costa was immobilized by the officer’s dog when shot.
The officer submitted a declaration stating the dog did not immobilize Costa; an unsworn eyewitness interview supported the defendants’ version.
The district court denied the Estate discovery after the defendants asserted qualified immunity and then granted summary judgment for defendants based on their submitted exhibits and declarations.
The Estate sought to depose the two living eyewitnesses (the officer and another eyewitness) to test defendants’ declarations; the district court precluded those depositions.
The Ninth Circuit found the denial of discovery an abuse of discretion because limited discovery may be necessary to adjudicate qualified immunity when factual disputes exist about whether an officer’s actions were lawful.
The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s rulings on all claims and remanded for further proceedings, allowing the Estate discovery; reassignment to a different judge was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery may be denied after assertion of qualified immunity	Estate: limited discovery is necessary to test defendants’ factual assertions about the shooting	Defendants: qualified immunity bars discovery and supports summary judgment on their affidavits	Court: Denial was abuse of discretion; limited discovery can be required to resolve qualified immunity when factual disputes exist
Whether summary judgment was proper without depositions of eyewitnesses	Estate: summary judgment premature without deposing the only living eyewitnesses	Defendants: summary judgment appropriate on submitted declarations/exhibits	Court: Summary judgment improper because Estate was prejudiced by inability to test declarations via deposition
Whether the Estate alleged a clearly established right	Estate: right against excessive force was clearly established given alleged facts (shot while immobilized)	Defendants: factual account differs, so qualified immunity applies	Court: The Estate alleged violation of a clearly established right sufficient to warrant discovery to resolve factual disputes
Scope of relief on appeal	Estate: requested remand and, separately, reassignment to a different judge	Defendants: opposed reassignment	Court: Remanded for further proceedings and discovery; denied reassignment request

Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2009) (limited discovery may be necessary before resolving qualified immunity at summary judgment)
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (qualified immunity and the interplay of factual development and summary judgment)
Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574 (1998) (discussing circumstances where discovery is needed in immunity contexts)