FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Febr uar y 17, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 10261

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 9 7 - 0 1 9 1 5 - CV- J LK M I C H A E L P E R E Z , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M I A M I - D A D E C O U N T Y , W I L L I A M A L L S B U R Y , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 17, 2006) B ef ore B A R K E T T and W IL S O N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and C O N W A Y *, D i stri ctJudg e.

________________________ *Honora ble Anne C. Conway, United States District Judg e for the Middle District of Florida , sitti ngby

designation.Allsbury ’s name is at times spelled “Alsbury .” F or the sakeof consistency, we adopt the 1 spelling of

his name as it appe ars in the c aption and re fer to him as “Allsbury .” 2 P E R C U R I A M: M i c ha e l P e r e z appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof de f e nda ntM i a m i - D a de C ounty ’ s m ot i on f

ors um m a ry j udgm e nta s t o hi s c l a i m s unde r42 U . S . C . §§ 1983, 1 9 8 5 , an d 1 9 8 6 , as w el l as th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d en i al o f sev eral d i sco v ery m o t i o n s. I . FACT S M i c ha e l P e r e z a nd hi s pa rtne rw e r e w orki ng a s unde r c ove rde t e c t i ve s f orthe M i am i -D ade P ol i ce D epartm ent(“ M D P D ”) on M ar ch 24 , 19 95 , w hen they r e s p o n d e d to th e irp o lic e r a d io b r o a d c a s t s ta tin g th a t f e llo w p o lic e o f

f ic e r s w e r e in p u r s u it o f

s e v e r a l A f

r ic a n - A m e r ic a n m a le s w h o h a d ju s t r o b b e d aR a d io S h a c k . T he y s pe d t o the s c e ne of the r obbe ry i n the i rpa tr ol c a ra nd j oi ne d i n the c ha s e of the suspec t s. W hen the suspec t s aband on ed thei r vehi cl e, P er ez and h i s partner c o n tin u e d th e c h a s e o n f o o t. A tthe sa m e t i m e, another M D P D offi ce r, S er geantW i l l i am A l l sbury, w as approachi ng the ar eafr om a di ff er entdi re ct i on and h eard the sa m e r adi o report broadcastov erhi s pol i ce car r adi o. W hi l e s peedi ng t o the sc ene, A l l sbury s aw 1 P e r e z a nd hi s pa rtne rrunni ng a l ong the s tr e e ta w a y f r om the R a di oS ha c k w he r e the robb ery had al l egedl y occ urre d. A l l sbury a ss um ed thatP er ez and h i s partner w er e the fl ee i ng suspec t s. A l l sbury hi tP er ez w i th h i s pol i ce car. P er ez cont ends thatAllsbury admitted that he maderac ist statements and that he c onsidered himself a 2 separationist, which by

his terms meant that he had the right not to eat with, work with, or live with Africa

n-Americans. Allsbury

is now dece ased.

3 A l l s bury “ i nt e nt i ona l l y a i m e d hi s ve hi c l e di r e c t l y a tthe pe r s on he be l i e ve d t o be th e s u b je c ts , g u n n e d th e e n g in e , a n d s tru c k[ h im ],” c au s in g P e r e z s e r io u s in ju r ie s . A l l s bury t e s t i f

i e d tha tthe e nt i r e i nc i de ntw a s a n a c c i de nt . H e c l a i m e d tha the drov e pas tP er ez and h i s partner, m ade aU -turn i nt o the yard w here they w er e ru n n in g , b u t b e c au s e th e g r a s s w a s w e t, h e lo s t c o n tr o l o f th e c a ra n d s lid in to P er ez . A fterh itti n g P er ez an d re alizin g h e w as a f ello w o ff icer , A ll sb u ry sa id , “ I a m s o rry . I th o u g h t y o u w e r e o n e o f th e s u b je c ts .” P erez, w h o i s H i sp an i c, cl ai m s th atA l l sb u ry i n t en t i o n al l y h i th i m b ecau se A l l s bury w a s ar a c i s ta nd m i s t a ke nl y be l i e ve d P e r e z w a s a n A f r i c a n- A m e r i c a n. 2 H e f ur the rc ont e nds tha tA l l s bury ’ s r a c i s tvi e w s w e r e know n t o M i a m i - D a de C ounty ( “ the C ounty ” ) . P e r e z a l s o a r gue s tha tthe C ounty kne w A l l s bury ha d a hi s t ory of

c ondoni ng the us e of

e xc e s s i ve f

or c e a ga i ns ts us pe c t s a nd tha tthe C o u n ty s h o u ld h a v e r e m o v e d A lls b u ry f r o m th e f o r c e , b a s e d o n s e v e r a l in c id e n ts w hi c h i nc l ude A l l s bury ’ s pr e vi ous us e of ave hi c l e t o appr e he nd as us pe c ta nd A l l s bury ’ s s t a t e m e nt s t o a nothe rof f i c e rtha the us e d hi s ve hi c l e t o appr e he nd su sp ect s. S ub se qu entt o the i nci denti n w hi ch A l l sbury s truck P er ez , P er ez cl ai m s that4

the C ounty e nga ge d i n as e r i e s of c ove r - ups a nd s ubj e c t e d hi m t o r e t a l i a t i on a nd h a r a s s m e n t, w h ic h w a s r e p r e s e n ta tiv e o f th e C o u n ty ’s s y s te m ic f a ilu r e to ap p ro p ri at el y d i sci p l i n e o ffi cers w h o u sed ex cessi v e fo rce an d w as p arto f a p o l i cy, know n t o the C ounty ’ s hi ghe s tof f i c i a l s , of pr ot e c t i ng of

f e ndi ng of

f i c e r s by enforci ng a c od e of s i l ence . I I . DI S C US S I ON 1 . S E C T I O N 1 9 8 3 C L A I MS W e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s o r d e rg r a n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t d e n o v o . P e n n in g to n v . C ity o

f H u n ts v ille , 2 6 1 F .3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 6 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) .

“ S um m ary j ud gm enti s app ropri at e i f the evi dence es t abl i shes no genu i ne i ss ue as t o a nym a t e r i a l f

a c ta nd tha tthe m ovi ng pa r ty i s e nt i t l e d t o j udgm e nta s am a tt e rof l aw . ” Mc C o rm ic k

v . C ity o f Fo r t L a u de rda le , 33 3 F . 3d 12 34 , 12 43 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . W e “r e s o lv e a ll r e a s o n ab le d o u b ts ab o u t th e f

a c ts in f a v o ro f th e n o n - m o v a n t, a n d d r a w a ll ju s tif iab le i nfer ence s i n h i s or herfa vo r. ” Fitz p a tr ic k v . C ity o f A tla n ta , 2 F . 3d 1112, 1115 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 3 ) ( in te rn a l m a rk s a n d q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . T he pl ai nt i ff

i n a § 1 98 3 ci vi l ri gh t s a ct i on m ustshow a depri vat i on of a “f e d e r a l r ig h t b y ap e r s o n a c tin g u n d e rc o lo ro f s ta te la w .” G r i

f f i n v . C i t y of O pa -L ocka , 2 6 1 F .3 d 1 2 9 5 , 1 3 0 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . S e c tio n 1 9 8 3 ap p lie s to5

m u n ic ip a litie s a n d o th e rlo c a l g o v e rn m e n t e n titie s , Mo n el l v. D ep ’t o f So c. Servs. , 43 6 U . S . 65 8, 69 0-91 , 98 S . C t . 20 18 , 20 35 -36, 56 L . E d. 2d 61 1 (19 78 ), bu tsuch e n titie s m a y o n ly b e liab le u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 f o rin ju r ie s c au s e d b y ap o lic y o rc u s to m . Bd. o f Co u n t y Co m m ’ rs v . Br o wn , 520 U . S . 397, 403, 117 S . C t . 1382, 1388, 137 L . E d. 2d 626 ( 1997) . “ A pol i c y i s ade c i s i on tha ti s of f i c i a l l y a dopt e d by the m u n ic ip a lity , o rc r e a te d b y a n o f f ic ia l o f s u c h r a n kth a t h e o rs h e c o u ld b e s a id to be ac t i ng on behal f of the m un i ci pal i ty. ” Se w e l l v . T ow n of L ake H am i l ton , 117 F . 3d 488, 489 ( 11th C i r . 1997) . A c us t om i s apr a c t i c e tha ti s s o s e tt l e d a nd p e rm a n e n t th a t it ta k e s o n th e f o r c e o f la w . Mo n e ll , 43 6 U . S . at69 0-91 , 98 S . C t . at 2 0 3 6 . T h e c u s to m m u s t b e “th e m o v in g f o r c e b e h in d th e c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n .” G r e c h v . C la

y to n C o u n ty , 33 5 F . 3d 13 26 , 13 29 (11th C i r. 20 03 ) ( en banc) (i nt ernal m arks om i tt ed). H er e, the evi dence i s s uffi ci entt o est abl i sh genu i ne i ss ues of m at er i al fa ct w ith r e s p e c t to P e r e z ’s e x c e s s iv e f o r c e a n d F ir s t A m e n d m e n t c la im s u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 . I n s uppor tof

hi s c l a i m tha tthe C ounty ha d ac us t om of e xc e s s i ve f

or c e ba s e d on fa i l ure t o i nv es t i gat e and di sc i pl i ne, P er ez al l eges the fol l ow i ng . A l l sbury w as i n v o l v ed i n n u m ero u s au t o m o b i l e co l l i si o n s. A l l sb u ry w as al so k n o w n t o u se r a c i a l l y de r oga t ory t e rm s , w hi c h s e rve d a s the ba s i s f oraC ounty rul e s a nd r e g u la tio n s d is c ip lin a ry v io la tio n . D u r in g ate n - y e a rtim e f r a m e , th e C o u n ty6

di sc i pl i ned o nl y 16 o ff

i ce rs for use of exces si ve force , si x o f w ho m re ce i ved w r i tt e n r e pr i m a nds a nd t e n of w hom w e r e s us pe nde d f orpe r i ods of

t i m e r a ngi ng f r om one t o t e n day s . P e r e z of f e r s the s w orn s t a t e m e nt s of i ndi vi dua l of

f i c e r s w ho t e s t i f i e d tha ti tw a s “ unde r s t ood” the r e w oul d be no puni s hm e ntf orthe us e of exce ss i ve force , as w el l as the sw orn st at em ent s of i nd i vi du al com pl ai nant s. P er ez has a l so al l eged i nci dent s of c ov er -up, i ncl ud i ng the cover-up of the subj ec t i nci dentw here i n o ff

i ce rs al l egedl y m ov ed A l l sbury’ s pol i ce car and conceal ed e vi de nc e . H e a l s o s a y s tha tthe “ C ounty ’ s c orpor a t e r e pr e s e nt a t i ve ” a dm i tt e d a

“ s y s t e m i c pr a c t i c e of

c ove r i ng up i nc i de nt s of e xc e s s i ve f

or c e . ” F ur the r , the C ou nty neverdi sc i pl i ned A l l sbury a ft erhi tt i ng P er ez bu ti nst ea d g ave hi m an a w a r d f o r“p r o f e s s io n a lis m ,” a n d a f

te rA lls b u ry r e tir e d , th e C o u n ty s ta te d th a t it

“ w oul d r e - hi r e ” hi m . P e r e z a l s o c l a i m s tha tothe rof f i c e r s w e r e a w a r e of A lls b u ry ’s p r a c tic e o f

ap p r e h e n d in g s u s p e c ts b y h ittin g th e m w ith h is c a ra n d h is s ta te m e n ts to o th e rm e m b e r s o f h is s q u a d th a t it w a s a c c e p tab le to h it s u s p e c ts in o r d e rto ap p r e h e n d th e m . H e s ta te s th a t th e M a y o rw a rn e d th e C o u n ty C om m i s s i on of

the “ gr a ve C ounty w i de pr obl e m ” of e xc e s s i ve f

or c e , a nd the f o rm e rc h a irm a n o f

th e I n d e p e n d e n t R e v ie w P a n e l r e c o m m e n d e d th a t th e C o u n ty needed a ci vi l i an ov er si gh tbo ar d w i th the po w ert o sub po ena pol i ce offi ce r w i tn esses an d d o cu m en t s, w h i ch th e C o u n ty d i d n o ti m p l em en t . A d d i t i o n al l y,7

P e r e z c l a i m s tha te vi de nc e of num e r ous e xc e s s i ve f

or c e s e tt l e m e nt s e s t abl i s he d the C ou nty’ s not i ce . F i nal l y, P er ez ci t es the C ou nty’ s f ai l ure t o p re pare use- of-f orce r e p o r ts in n u m e r o u s in c id e n ts , in c lu d in g th e in s ta n t c a s e . T h is e v id e n c e is s uf f i c i e ntt o r a i s e age nui ne i s s ue of m a t e r i a l f

a c ta s t o w he the rthe C ounty ha d a c us t om of

us i ng e xc e s s i ve f

or c e , a nd the r e f

or e , s um m a ry j udgm e ntw a s not ap p r o p r i a t e o n th i s c l a i m. P e r e z a l s o r a i s e s a§ 1983 c l a i m ba s e d on the C ounty ’ s a l l e ge d vi ol a t i ons of hi s F i r s tA m e ndm e ntr i ght s . “ T o s t a t e ac l a i m f orr e t a l i a t i on i n vi ol a t i on of the F i rs tA m endm ent , a pub l i c e m pl oyee m ustshow that[hi s] em pl oyerre t al i at ed agai nst[hi m ] because of [ hi s] spee ch on a m att erof pu bl i c c on ce rn. ” Stav r opoulos v . Fi r e s tone , 3 6 1 F .3 d 6 1 0 , 6 1 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . R e ta lia tio n o c c u r s w h e n ap u b lic e m pl oy e r“ t a ke s a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on tha ti s l i ke l y t o c hi l l the e xe r c i s e of const i tut i on al l y prot ec t ed spee ch. ” Id . H e r e , the C ounty ha s a dm i tt e d tha ti tt ook a w a y P e r e z ’ s di s abi l i ty l e a ve t i m e pur s ua ntt o a n of f i c i a l pol i c y . T hi s a c t i on co n st i tu t es an ad v erse em p l o ym en tact i o n fo r p u rp o ses o f P erez’s F i rst A m e n d m e n t r e ta lia tio n c la im u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 . Se e id . at6 1 9 (d efi n i n g “ ad v erse e m pl oy m e nta c t i on” a s one tha ti nvol ve s “ a n i m por t a ntc ondi t i on of em pl oym ent ”) . H a vi ng de t e rm i ne d tha tthe r e w a s a n a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nta c t i on, w e now8

tu rn to w h e th e rth e C o u n ty r e ta lia te d a g a in s t P e r e z b a s e d o n h is p r o te c te d s p e e c h . I n ma k i n g th i s d e t e rmi n a t i o n , w e u s e af o u r - p a r tt e s td e r i v e d f

r o m P i c ke r i ng v . B d. o f E du c . o f T w p . Hig h Sc h . D is t. 205 , 391 U . S . 563, 88 S . C t . 1731, 20 L . E d. 2d 8 1 1 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . F ir s t, w e a s kw h e th e rth e e m p lo y e e ’s s p e e c h is am a tte ro f p u b lic c o n c e rn . McKi nle

y v . Kaplan , 2 6 2 F . 3 d 1 1 4 6 , 1 1 4 9 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 1 ) . “ I f s o , we w ei g h th e em p l o yee’ s F i rstA m en d m en ti n t erestag ai n stth e g o v ern m en t ’ s i n t erest in p r o m o tin g th e e f

f ic ie n c y o f

th e p u b lic s e rv ic e s it p e r f o rm s th r o u g h its em pl oyee s. ” I

d. If th e em p l o yee p rev ai l s o n th e b al an ci n g t est , w e n ex task

“ w hether the spee ch pl ay ed a s ub st ant i al parti n the [a dv er se em pl oym entac t i on ] . ” I d. a t1 1 5 0 . “ [ I ] f

th e s p e e c h wa s as u b s t a n t i a l m o t i v a t i n g f a c t o ri n th e d e c i s i o n , we deci de w hether the go vernm enthas s ho w n b y aprepon dera nce of the evi dence that i tw ou l d h ave [ t aken the adverse em pl oym entac t i on ] re gardl es s of the prot ec t ed cond uct . ” I

d. “ T he fi rs ttw o st eps are qu es t i on s of l aw ; the fi nal tw o st eps are que s t i ons of

f a c tde s i gne d t o de t e rm i ne w he the rthe a l l e ge d a dve r s e e m pl oy m e nt ac t i on w as i n ret al i at i on for the prot ec t ed spee ch. ” C ook v . G w i nne t t

C ount y Sc h. D is t. , 4 1 4 F .3 d 1 3 1 3 , 1 3 1 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . I n thi s c a s e , the f

i r s tpr ong i s s a t i s f

i e d be c aus e P e r e z ’ s s pe e c h c ons t i tut e d a m a tte ro f p u b lic c o n c e rn . Se e , e .g ., C o o p e rv . Sm ith , 89 F . 3d 76 1, 76 5 (11 th C i r. 1996) ( “ T he r e c a n be no doubttha tc orrupt i on i n apol i c e de pa r tm e nti s a n i s s ue of9

p u b lic c o n c e rn .” ) ; Fi ke s v . C i t y of D aphne , 79 F . 3d 1079, 1084 ( 11th C i r . 1996) ( “[ T ]h e q u e s tio n o f

w h e th e rp o lic e o f

f ic e r s a r e p r o p e r ly p e r f

o rm in g th e ird u tie s . . . m u s t b e c o n s id e r e d a n is s u e o f p o litic a l o rs o c ia l c o n c e rn .” ) . B ec ause P er ez ’ s s peec h w as prot ec t ed spee ch, w e m ustappl y the se cond part of the P i c ke r i nga n a ly s is a n d “w e ig h th e e m p lo y e e ’s F ir s t A m e n d m e n t in te r e s ts a ga i ns tthe i nt e r e s tof

the [ C ounty ] , a s a n e m pl oy e r , i n pr om ot i ng the e f f i c i e nc y of the pu bl i c s ervi ce s i tperf orm s throu gh i t s e m pl oyee s. ” Id . (i n t ern al m ark s, quot a t i ons , a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . I n doi ng s o, w e c ons i de ra ny i m pe di m e ntthe s pe e c h c aus e d t o the gove rnm e nt ’ s abi l i ty t o pe r f orm i t s dut i e s e f

f e c t i ve l y ; the m anner, t i m e, and p l ac e of the spee ch; and the cont extw i thi n w hi ch the spee ch w a s m a d e . Id . H e r e , the r e i s nothi ng t o i ndi c a t e tha tP e r e z ’ s s pe e c h di s rupt e d the C ou nty’ s abi l i ty t o fun ct i on , no r i s there anythi ng t o sug gestthatthe “ t i m e, pl ac e, a nd m a nne r ” or“ c ont e xt ” of the s pe e c h w a s i nappr opr i a t e . T he r e f or e , the C o u n ty’ s i n t eresti n effi ci en to p erat i o n i s i n su ffi ci en tt o o v erco m e P erez’s i n t erest in r e v e a lin g p o s s ib le p o lic e m is c o n d u c t. W e m ustal so det erm i ne w hether the spee ch ati ss ue pl ay ed a s ub st ant i al part i n the adverse em pl oym entac t i on . P er ez ’ s a l l egat i on s are suff i ci entt o rai se such a n i nf e r e nc e . H e c l a i m s tha tw he n he c om pl a i ne d aboutthe i nc i de nti nvol vi ng A l l sbury and the al l eged cover-up of thati nci dent , he w as t ol d thathi s “ care erThe district cour t also grante d summary

judgment in favor of

the County

as to Perez’s 3 c laimsunder § § 1 98 5 a

nd 19 86 . Wea ff

ir m f or there a so nsstate d b y

thedis tric t c ourt . 10 w oul d be ove r . ” P e r e z c l a i m s tha tthe C ounty t appe d hi s phone , l i s t e ni ng i n on pri vat e c on vers at i on s. H e a l so al l eges , and the C ou nty a dm i t s, thati tt oo k aw ay h is d is ab ility le a v e tim e b e c au s e h e “b r o u g h t litig a tio n ” a g a in s t th e C o u n ty . T here fore , P er ez has c re at ed an i ss ue of m at er i al fa ctas t o w hether hi s s peec h pl a y e d as ubs t a nt i a l pa rti n the C ounty ’ s a c t i ons a ga i ns thi m . W he the r , unde rthe fourth p artof the P i c ke r i nga na l y s i s , the C ounty c a n s how by apr e ponde r a nc e of th e e v id en ce th at itw o u ldh av e r ea ch ed th e s am e d ec isio n in th e a b se n ce o f P er ez ’s p r o te c te d c o n d u c t is lik e w is e aq u e s tio n o f f a c t f o rth e ju ry . See Fi kes , 79 F . 3d at 10 85 . T here fore , w e r ever se sum m ary j ud gm entas t o P er ez ’ s § 19 83 cl ai m base d o n th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t. 3 2 . DI S C OV E R Y R UL I NG S F i na l l y , P e r e z c l a i m s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n de ny i ng s e ve r a l m ot i ons t o c om pe l di s c ove ry , i nc l udi ng ( 1) am ot i on t o c om pe l pr oduc t i on of va r i ous d o cu m en t s reg ard i n g p erso n n el fi l es, p ro fessi o n al co m p l i an ce fi l es, an d ri sk m anagem entfi l es of vari ou s off i ce rs w ho w er e a l l eged t o u se exce ss i ve force ; (2) a mo t i o n t o c o mp e l p r o d u c t i o n o f aCo u n ty me mo r a n d u m a d mi tt i n g th a tth e M D PD w a n te d to “g e t r id o f

” P e r e z ; ( 3 ) am o tio n to c o m p e l p r o d u c tio n o f d o c u m e n ts r e ga r di ng the C ounty C om m i s s i one r ’ s f a i l ur e t o c r e a t e aC i vi l i a n I nve s t i ga t i ve11

P a n e l w ith s u b p o e n ap o w e r ; ( 4 ) am o tio n to c o m p e l p r o d u c tio n o f d o c u m e n ts re gardi ng the i nv es t i gat i on of use of e xces si ve force thatw as the subj ec tof a r e ne w e d m ot i on t o c om pe l ; a nd ( 5) P e r e z ’ s m ot i on t o a l l ow hi m t o de pos e the C o u n ty ’s p o lic e e x p e rt. W e r e vi e w the de ni a l of di s c ove ry m ot i ons f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on. I

r aola & C I A , S. A . v . Ki m be r l

y - C lark C or p. , 32 5 F . 3d 12 74 , 12 86 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). “ W here a s i gn i fi cantam ou ntof di sc ov ery has been ob t ai ned, and i tappears thatfurther di sc ov ery w ou l d n otbe hel pful i n res ol vi ng the i ss ues, a r equestfor f urther di sc ov ery i s properl y deni ed. ” Id . (i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). F urther, di sc ov ery ru lin g s s h o u ld n o t b e o v e rtu rn e d “u n le s s it is s h o w n th a t [ th e y ] r e s u lte d in subst ant i al harm t o the appel l ant ’ s c as e. ” Id . (i nt ernal qu ot at i on s om i tt ed). In thi s c as e, consi deri ng the sc op e of di sc ov ery r equest s pre vi ou sl y grant ed by the di stri ctcourt , and g i ven the fa ctthatP er ez has notshow n thathi s c as e w as s u b s ta n tia lly h a rm e d b y th e d e n ia ls o f th e d is c o v e ry m o tio n s a t is s u e , th e c o u r t d id no tabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng any of the di sc ov ery m ot i on s. W e there fore affi rm th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d en i al o f th ese m o t i o n s. I I I . C ON C L US I ON Up o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f

th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f

s , a r g u m e n t s , a n d th e r e c o r d , we v a c a te th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s g r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f th e C o u n ty a s to12

P e r e z ’s § 1 9 8 3 c la im s a n d r e m a n d f o rf u r th e rp r o c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n . W e a ff

irm th e d istrict co u rt’s g ra n t o f s u m m ar y ju d g m en t as to P er ez ’s claim s u n d er§ § 1 9 8 5 an d 1 9 8 6 , as w ell as th e d istrict co u rt’s ru li n g s o n P er ez ’s d i sco v ery m o t i o n s. VA C A TED A N D R EM A N D ED I N PA R T; A FFI R M ED I N PA R T.