Greg Moore v. Sean Garnand, 83 F.4th 743 (2023)

Citation: Greg Moore v. Sean Garnand, 83 F.4th 743 (2023)
Parent Document: Greg Moore v. Sean Garnand, 83 F.4th 743 (2023)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2023-09-29
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9429207/greg-moore-v-sean-garnand/ ↗

Full Text

1,331 chars

obtain evidence necessary to oppose the motion because of
the LEIP.
    In February 2022, Defendants filed an amended motion
for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, and
Plaintiffs renewed their Rule 56(d) motion. A magistrate
judge granted Plaintiffs’ Rule 56(d) motion in part by
ordering Defendants to produce certain discovery but stayed
all other discovery. The magistrate judge also ordered
Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants’ summary judgment
motion.
    Plaintiffs challenged the magistrate judge’s rulings
before the district court. The district court issued an order
overruling the magistrate judge’s relevant decisions. The
order granted Plaintiffs Rule 56(d) relief and lifted the
discovery stay. Rather than defer ruling on the motion, the
district court decided to deny it: “Defendants’ Amended
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 348) is denied without
prejudice and with leave to re-file after the completion of
discovery.” Defendants timely appeal from the district
court’s denial.
                      II. JURISDICTION
    The parties dispute whether we have jurisdiction to
consider the “First Amendment” portion of this appeal.6 “An
interlocutory appeal may be taken from the denial of
immunity if the denial presents a question of law.” KRL v.
Moore, 384 F.3d 1105, 1109–10 (9th Cir. 2004). A question

Other Sections in This Document (42)

Full Text