IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

CHRISTOPHER RUSANOWSKY, § 

 § 

Plaintiff, § 

 § 

V. § No. 3:22-cv-1132-K 

 § 

THE CITY OF DALLAS and SGT. § 

ROGER A. RUDLOFF, individually and § 

in his official capacity as a Dallas Police § 

Department Police Officer, § 

 § 

Defendants. § 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 

Plaintiff Christopher Rusanowsky has sued the City of Dallas and one of its 

police officers (Sgt. Roger A. Rudloff) alleging that the defendants violated his 

constitutional rights to record the police performing their duties in public, to not be 

detained without reasonable suspicion, and to not be subjected to warrantless arrest 

without probable cause. See Dkt. No. 1. Rudloff answered, asserting qualified 

immunity. See Dkt. No. 14, ¶ 2.4.1. 

Rusanowsky moved for leave to conduct limited discovery and Rudloff 

responded to that motion. See Dkt. Nos. 30, 31. The Court then referred the motion 

to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for disposition under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(a), see Dkt. No. 32. 

After obtaining a joint status report from the parties, see Dkt. Nos. 35, 36, the 

Court entered a memorandum opinion and order on February 9, 2023, conditionally 

granting in part and denying in part Rusanowsky’s motion for leave and requiring 

Case 3:22-cv-01132-K Document 39 Filed 03/07/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID 397
- 2 - 

the parties to meet and confer to discuss discovery requests that fit into the narrow 

parameters outlined by the Court and file a second joint status report [Dkt. No. 37] 

(the February 9 Memorandum Opinion and Order). See also Rusanowsky v. City of 

Dall., No. 3:22-cv-1132-K, 2023 WL 1870074 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2023). 

The parties’ second joint status report (the Second JSR), filed March 3, 2023, 

sets out their agreement as to two discovery requests by Rusanowsky, requests they 

agree are narrowly tailored to uncover only facts that the Court needs to rule on 

Rudloff’s entitlement to qualified immunity: 

 The parties agree that – subject to a diligent search by the City 

Defendant for footage within its possession, custody, and control – 

bodycam footage generated by officers on the scene of the events giving 

rise to this litigation, recorded between 8:15 p.m. and 8:55 p.m. on May 

30, 2020, may be produced at this phase. The parties understand this 

forty-minute window to cover the approximate period of time between 

when police officers on the scene entered the freeway to disperse the 

protesters present there, through the time of Plaintiff’s arrest. Counsel 

for Defendants confirmed that after a diligent search, the City has 

located footage responsive to this request. 

 The parties agree that among the investigative records Plaintiff sought 

in his proposed modification to City RFP No. 8 (Dkt. 36 at 4, Item No. 

3), records may be produced that disclose information on Defendant Sgt. 

Rudloff’s whereabouts and activities between 8:15 p.m. and 8:55 p.m. on 

Case 3:22-cv-01132-K Document 39 Filed 03/07/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID 398
- 3 - 

May 30, 2020. The parties further agree that the City Defendant may 

redact information from these records that does not pertain to Sgt. 

Rudloff’s whereabouts and activities, and his interactions with the 

Plaintiff. The parties will attempt to resolve any disputes arising from 

those redactions after such records are produced. 

Dkt. No. 38 at 2. 

The Court concurs with the parties’ assessment that these requests are 

appropriately narrowly tailored for the reasons set out in the February 9 

Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court therefore AUTHORIZES this discovery 

and REQUIRES that Rudloff file a notice advising the Court when (no later than 30 

days after entry of this order) the discovery is produced to Rusanowsky. 

The Second JSR further sets out a disagreement between the parties as to a 

discovery request by Rudloff, a single interrogatory to Rusanowsky to clarify his 

allegations: 

Please state whether, on May 30, 2020, you ever walked on a public 

freeway, highway, or street from the time you “parked [your] car in 

downtown Dallas and joined two other journalists to begin documenting 

the historic events” to when you were arrested. Include in your answer 

whether you were on I-35 or any of its adjacent roads and not specifically 

on a crosswalk. 

Dkt. No. 38 at 3. 

Rusanowsky informs the Court that, while he is not opposed to the substance 

of this interrogatory, “Defendants [should] seek the Court’s leave to take the 

discovery they want through a properly-made motion.” Id. at 4. 

As a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently 

Case 3:22-cv-01132-K Document 39 Filed 03/07/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID 399
- 4 - 

confirmed, the restrictive special procedure for obtaining discovery where qualified 

immunity has been asserted in good faith does not necessarily apply to the party 

asserting qualified immunity: 

[W]here the pleadings are sufficient to overcome QI, the district court 

must deny the motion to dismiss without the benefit of pre-dismissal 

discovery. In the latter scenario, however, our precedent gives the 

defendant-official at least two choices after his motion to dismiss is 

denied. First, the defendant can immediately appeal the district court’s 

denial under the collateral order doctrine. Or second – à la Lion Boulos

and its progeny – the defendant can move the district court for discovery 

limited to the factual disputes relevant to whether QI applies, then 

reassert QI in a summary judgment motion. Why does the defendant 

alone enjoy this choice? Because only the defendant-official enjoys 

qualified immunity from suit. 

Carswell v. Camp, 54 F.4th 307, 312 (5th Cir. 2022) (citations omitted). 

So, while it may a better practice for Rudloff to move for the discovery he now 

seeks through his own motion, considering that the issue before the Court is Rudloff’s 

“qualified immunity from suit” and that the Court invited the parties to cooperatively 

(and less formally) resolve qualified immunity discovery requests consistent with the 

scope of the February 9 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court AUTHORIZES 

Rudloff’s proposed interrogatory and REQUIRES that Rusanowsky file a notice 

advising the Court when (no later than 30 days after entry of this order) an answer 

is provided to Rudloff. 

Conclusion 

The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff Christopher 

Rusanowsky’s motion for discovery as supplemented [Dkt. Nos. 30, 35, 38] and 

GRANTS Defendant Roger A. Rudloff’s construed motion for discovery [Dkt. No. 38] 

Case 3:22-cv-01132-K Document 39 Filed 03/07/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID 400
- 5 - 

for the reasons set out above and in the February 9 Memorandum Opinion and Order. 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 7, 2023 

 ________________________________________ 

 DAVID L. HORAN 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-01132-K Document 39 Filed 03/07/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID 401