1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER RUSANOWSKY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF DALLAS and SGT.

ROGER A. RUDLOFF, individually 

and in his official capacity as a Dallas 

Police Department Police Officer,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-1132

JOINT STATUS REPORT

On February 9, 2023, the Court issued an Order (Dkt. 37) conditionally granting Plaintiff’s 

motion for limited discovery (Dkt. 30) to address the as-yet unresolved issue of Defendant Sgt. 

Roger A. Rudloff’s qualified immunity. In its Order, the Court directed the parties to continue 

conferring over the content which the parties agree fit within the “narrow parameters” established 

by the Fifth Circuit for pre-summary judgment discovery into an officer’s qualified immunity from 

suit. (Dkt. 37 at 17). The Court further directed the parties to file this status report by March 3, 

2023 to advise the Court on their progress towards reaching an agreement on permissible discovery 

at this phase.

I. Agreed Discovery Requests.

Counsel for the parties conferred by phone on February 28, 2023. The parties agree that 

the following discovery requests are authorized at this time because they are “narrowly tailored to 

Case 3:22-cv-01132-K Document 38 Filed 03/03/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID 391
2

uncover only the facts necessary to rule on [Defendant Sgt. Rudloff’s] immunity defense.”1 Id. at 

6 (quoting Webb v. Livingston, 618 F. App’x 201, 210 (5th Cir. 2015)):

1. 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.

2. 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 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.

Because the parties were able to reach agreement on these two sets of discovery requests, Plaintiff 

withdraws his motion as to his remaining requests.

II. Defendant’s Request and Plaintiff’s Response.

At the same discovery conference above, counsel discussed the addition of one discovery 

request for Defendant in response to this Court’s interpretation of Plaintiff’s pleadings in its 

1 Defendant maintains that no discovery is necessary for resolution of qualified immunity. However, based on this 

Court’s instructions, Defendant has agreed to the below.

Case 3:22-cv-01132-K Document 38 Filed 03/03/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID 392
3

February 9, 2023 Order. While respectfully conferenced in good faith, the Parties could not agree. 

The following are their positions.

a. Defendant’s Request.

After this Court’s February 9, 2023 Order, Defendant believes Plaintiff’s artfully-pled 

Complaint and Rule 7(a)(7) Reply leave in doubt a fact issue that is potentially central to 

Defendant’s qualified immunity defense: whether Plaintiff claims he was ever actually on a 

roadway before he was arrested. As this Court’s Order notes, Plaintiff alleges he “clearly and 

visibly did not follow the protestors onto the freeway . . .” ECF No. 26 ⁋⁋ 3-11 (emphasis added).

Further, Plaintiff claimed that “[a]t no time did [he] obstruct traffic on any roadway . . .” Id. ⁋ 31. 

The relevant statute at issue does not prohibit “obstructing traffic,” whether clearly or visibly, but 

rather whether a person 

obstructs a highway, street, sidewalk, railway, waterway, elevator, aisle, hallway, 

entrance, or exit to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access, 

or any other place used for the passage of persons, vehicles, or conveyances, 

regardless of the means of creating the obstruction and whether the obstruction 

arises from his acts alone or from his acts and the acts of others.

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 42.03(a)(1).

Defendant submits that Plaintiff has nowhere specifically stated, certainly not under oath, 

that he was never on a public roadway. Defendant requests a single interrogatory – based on 

Plaintiff’s pleadings – to clarify Plaintiff’s allegations:

1) 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.

Case 3:22-cv-01132-K Document 38 Filed 03/03/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID 393
4

Defendant did not previously seek discovery on this issue. Defendant had interpreted 

Plaintiff’s pleadings to have not specifically alleged that Plaintiff was never actually on a roadway 

in violation of section 42.03 of the Texas Criminal Code. This singular interrogatory would clarify 

this matter.

b. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Request.

Following the Parties’ February 28th conference, counsel for Plaintiff informed counsel 

for Defendants that they would not oppose a motion asking the Court’s permission to take their 

proposed interrogatory, nor are they opposed to answering the proposed interrogatory should the 

Court permit it. However, counsel for Plaintiff added that Defendants are now more than three

months past the deadline set in the Court’s Qualified Immunity Order for seeking leave to take 

discovery, and therefore Plaintiff believes that Defendants cannot show good cause for their 

delay. See Dkt. 29 (setting Nov. 21, 2022 deadline for motions to conduct limited discovery).

Per the Court’s Qualified Immunity Order, Dkt. 23 at 2, Defendants need a court order to 

propound their proposed interrogatory—a court order which must be sought through a motion. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1). But Defendants cannot bootstrap their request onto Plaintiff’s motion—to 

obtain the relief they seek, they must file a motion of their own. For that reason alone, Defendants’ 

request is not properly before the Court and should be denied. See Beepot v. J.P. Morgan Chase 

Nat’l Corp. Servs., Inc., No. 3:10-cv-423-J-34PDB, 2014 WL 11412694, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 

2014) (declining to consider request for affirmative relief in status report because it was not made 

via motion). Should Defendants seek the Court’s leave to take the discovery they want through a 

properly-made motion, Plaintiff is unopposed.

Case 3:22-cv-01132-K Document 38 Filed 03/03/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID 394
5

Dated: March 3, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ David W. Henderson

David W. Henderson

Texas State Bar No. 24032292

dhenderson@equalrights.law

J. Sebastian Van Coevorden

Texas State Bar No. 24128101

svancoevorden@equalrights.law

ELLWANGER LAW LLLP

400 S. Zang Blvd. Ste. 600

Dallas, TX 75208

Telephone: (469) 998-6775

Facsimile: (469) 998-6775

Peter B. Steffensen

Texas State Bar No. 24106464

psteffensen@smu.edu

SMU DEDMAN SCHOOL OF LAW

FIRST AMENDMENT CLINIC

P.O. Box 750116

Dallas, TX 75275

Telephone: (214) 768-4077

Facsimile: (214) 768-1611

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF DALLAS

Tammy L. Palomino

Interim City Attorney

/s/ J. Cheves Ligon .

J. Cheves Ligon

Senior Assistant City Attorney

Texas State Bar No. 24070147

john.ligon@dallas.gov

7DN Dallas City Hall

1500 Marilla Street

Dallas, Texas 75201

Telephone: 214-670-3519

Facsimile: 214-670-0622

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 3:22-cv-01132-K Document 38 Filed 03/03/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID 395
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 3rd day of March, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

document was served on all counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF system. 

/s/ Peter B. Steffensen

Peter B. Steffensen

Case 3:22-cv-01132-K Document 38 Filed 03/03/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID 396