{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-14","fingerprint":"ewai:us:88b5b2","proof":"sha256:8ae9edbc6391d8edf44131426d5ff32245b41796f88e53760b47c476833b2c9c","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41"],"kind":"front_matter"},{"title":"SUMMARY*","paragraphs":["para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312"],"kind":"summary"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"FOR PUBLICATION","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"ADRIAN HUMBERTO RIOS, an","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"individual, by and through his","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Guardian Ad Litem Brenda Yvette","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Ceja; M.P.R., a minor individual, by","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"and through her Guardian ad Litem,","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Brenda Yvette Ceja; ADRIAN RIOS,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Jr., an individual,","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Plaintiffs - Appellees,","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"CITY OF AZUSA; BENJAMIN","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"CYPHER, an individual; V.","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"GARCIA, an individual; RICHARD","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"MARTINEZ, an individual;","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"STEVEN D. SEARS, an individual;","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"MICHAEL DEANDA, an individual;","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"MICHAEL WISE, an individual;","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"ZACHARY CHADWICK, an","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"individual,","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"Defendants - Appellants,","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"and","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"JACOB DAO, an individual,","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"Defendants.","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"No. 24-5734","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"D.C. No.","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"2:22-cv-03968-","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"WLH-RAO","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"2 RIOS V. CITY OF AZUSA","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"Appeal from the United States District Court","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"for the Central District of California","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"Wesley L. Hsu, District Judge, Presiding","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"Argued and Submitted November 21, 2025","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"Pasadena, California","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"Filed August 20, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"Before: Marsha S. Berzon, N. Randy Smith, and Eric D.","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"Miller, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"Opinion by Judge Miller","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"SUMMARY*","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"Jurisdiction / Qualified Immunity","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"The panel dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion for","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity in an","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state law, and","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"the Americans with Disabilities Act by Adrian Rios and his","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"two children against the City of Azusa, Los Angeles County,","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"individual police officers, and a paramedic.","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"In the course of handcuffing Rios to take him into","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"custody, officers twice used a Taser and repeatedly punched,","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"kicked, or otherwise struck him, at least 24 times. Rios","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"RIOS V. CITY OF AZUSA 3","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"suffered serious brain damage and is now in a persistent","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"vegetative state.","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"The panel held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"district court’s decision not to exclude certain evidence as a","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"discovery sanction. Under Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"(1995), the court may not review a portion of a district","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"court’s summary judgment order that, though entered in a","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"qualified immunity case, determines only a question of","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"evidence sufficiency. Because the crux of defendants’","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"argument was that the district court abused its discretion in","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"denying their motion to strike a declaration, defendants","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"raised only a question about evidence sufficiency that may","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"not be reviewed in an interlocutory appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"The panel further rejected defendants’ contentions that","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"pendent jurisdiction applied. Because the panel lacked","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity, there","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"was no appealable claim to which a pendent claim could","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"attach. Accordingly, the panel dismissed the appeal in its","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"entirety.","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"4 RIOS V. CITY OF AZUSA","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"COUNSEL","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"Timothy A. Scott (argued) and Marcus S. Bourassa,","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"McKenzie Scott PC, San Diego, California; Geralyn L.","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"Skapik, Matthew Falkenstein, and Blair J. Berkley, Skapik","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"Law Group, Chino Hills, California; Eric C. Morris,","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"Southern California Lawyers Group PC, Chino Hills,","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"California; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"Steven J. Renick (argued) and Mildred K. O'Linn, Manning","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"& Kass Ellrod Ramirez Trester LLP, Los Angeles,","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"California; Yury A. Kolesnikov, Manning & Kass Ellrod","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"Ramirez Trester LLP, San Diego, California; for","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"Defendants-Appellants.","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"OPINION","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"MILLER, Circuit Judge:","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"In an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"immunity, we may consider “whether the facts establish a","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"violation of a clearly established constitutional right.” Peck","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"v. Montoya, 51 F.4th 877, 885 (9th Cir. 2022). But we may","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"not review the district court’s assessment of the sufficiency","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"of the evidence—“which facts a party may, or may not, be","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"able to prove at trial.” Id. (quoting Johnson v. Jones, 515","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"U.S. 304, 313 (1995)). This case presents the question","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"whether we may review a district court’s decision not to","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"exclude certain evidence as a discovery sanction. We hold","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"that we may not.","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"RIOS V. CITY OF AZUSA 5","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"Late in the evening of July 22, 2021, several callers","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"reported to the Azusa, California, police that a man in the","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"courtyard of an apartment complex was acting erratically.","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"The callers said that the man was talking to himself and had","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"threatened a shooting, but they gave conflicting accounts of","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"whether he might be armed. Based on information provided","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"by the building manager, a 911 dispatcher identified the man","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"as Adrian Rios and determined that he was subject to a","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"domestic-violence restraining order.","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"Several police officers arrived at the scene. Over the","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"course of approximately half an hour, they observed Rios","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"walk back and forth as he repeated the phrase, “bang, bang,","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"shots fired,” while making the shape of a gun with his hands.","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"Although some of the officers had a clear view of Rios and","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"others did not, none saw him with a weapon. The officers","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"ordered Rios to get on the ground, but he did not comply.","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"Some of the officers then approached Rios to take him","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"into custody. The nature of the resulting interaction is","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"disputed, but it is not disputed that in the course of","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"handcuffing Rios, the officers twice used a Taser and","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"repeatedly punched, kicked, or otherwise struck him—by","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"their own description, at least 24 times. Rios suffered serious","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"brain damage and is now in a persistent vegetative state.","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"Rios and his two children, Adrian Rios Jr. and M.P.R.,","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"brought this action against the City of Azusa, Los Angeles","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"County, seven individual police officers, and a paramedic.","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"They asserted excessive-force and other constitutional","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, various state-law tort claims,","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"and claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101.","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"During discovery, counsel for plaintiffs became aware","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"that Michael Brown, a resident of the apartment complex","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"6 RIOS V. CITY OF AZUSA","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"where the incident took place, had filed a pro se complaint","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"against the Azusa Police Department alleging excessive","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"force in an unrelated episode. Counsel promptly interviewed","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"Brown. During the interview, counsel realized that they had","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"already spoken with Brown shortly after the July 2021","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"incident involving Rios. In that earlier conversation, Brown","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"said that he had witnessed Rios’s beating, but he refused to","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"identify himself or provide a detailed statement. This time,","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"however, he was willing to do so. A few days before the","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"close of discovery, plaintiffs supplemented their initial","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a),","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"which had not mentioned Brown, to state that Brown was","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"likely to have discoverable information.","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"Soon thereafter, plaintiffs provided defendants with a","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"declaration by Brown, which they ultimately included as an","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"exhibit to their summary-judgment papers. In the","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"declaration, Brown stated that although Rios “moved his","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"hands and arms like a gun and said words about a gun, it was","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"easy to see that he did not have a gun.” He added that as the","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"officers approached, Rios “did not move in any manner I","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"would describe as a fighting stance or threat.” According to","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"Brown, “[r]ather than threaten the officers in any way, . . .","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"Rios lay down on his stomach in front of them,” and it","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"appeared that “he was obeying their command to get down.”","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"At that point, Brown said, the officers “proceeded to kick","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"Mr. Rios repeatedly while he lay on the ground defenseless,”","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"even though Rios “was not fighting back,” “did not reach for","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"a taser or swing at the officers,” and “did not appear to be","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"resisting in any way.” Thereafter, “[o]ne of the officers knelt","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"on top of Mr. Rios near his head or neck.”","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"excessive-force claim. Under the doctrine of qualified","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"RIOS V. CITY OF AZUSA 7","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"immunity, officers are shielded from civil liability under","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"section 1983 unless a plaintiff establishes that their conduct","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"“violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Defendants","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"argued that “the force used was reasonable and not excessive","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"under the totality of the circumstances,” and that no","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"“controlling authority at the time of the incident” had clearly","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"established otherwise.","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"Defendants also moved to strike Brown’s declaration","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), which","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"provides that when a party fails to identify a witness as","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"required by Rule 26, “the party is not allowed to use that . . .","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"witness to supply evidence . . . unless the failure was","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P.","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"37(c)(1). Defendants argued that plaintiffs had not timely","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"disclosed Brown as an “individual likely to have","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"discoverable information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i).","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"The late disclosure of Brown’s identity, they said, was not","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"justified and had caused prejudice by “depriv[ing]","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"Defendants of an opportunity to depose Mr. Brown.”","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"The district court denied the motion to strike Brown’s","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"declaration. It found “that Plaintiffs timely disclosed Brown","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"as a potential witness soon after learning that he saw the","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"incident with Rios.” “Regardless,” the court added, it would","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"“extend the discovery deadline” to allow defendants to take","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"Brown’s deposition “if they so wish.”","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"The district court went on to deny summary judgment in","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"relevant part, concluding that “viewing the facts and","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"evidence in the light most favorable to Rios, a rational jury","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"could find that the Officer Defendants used excessive force","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"against Rios in violation of clearly established law.” The","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"8 RIOS V. CITY OF AZUSA","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"court also denied summary judgment with respect to some","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"of the state-law and ADA claims.","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"Defendants appeal. The crux of their argument is that the","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"district court abused its discretion in denying their motion to","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"strike Brown’s declaration. In their view, because Brown’s","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"declaration “was the only evidence relied upon by the district","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"court to find a genuine dispute of facts,” the district court","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"erred in denying summary judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"That argument is not properly before us. We have","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"jurisdiction over appeals from “final decisions of the district","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291; see Geo Grp., Inc. v. Menocal,","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"146 S. Ct. 774, 781 (2026). Orders denying summary","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"judgment are not final, so they are not normally immediately","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"appealable. Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765, 771 (2014).","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"But because qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"rather than a mere defense to liability,” the Supreme Court","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"has held that orders denying qualified immunity are","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"effectively final and are therefore subject to immediate","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"appeal under the collateral-order doctrine. Mitchell v.","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (emphasis omitted); see","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"Plumhoff, 572 U.S. at 771–72. In such an appeal, we may","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"review “whether the facts establish a violation of a clearly","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"established constitutional right, thus defeating qualified","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"immunity.” Peck, 51 F.4th at 885. But under the Supreme","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"Court’s decision in Johnson v. Jones, we may not review “a","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"portion of a district court’s summary judgment order that,","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"though entered in a qualified immunity case, determines","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"only a question of evidence sufficiency, i.e., which facts a","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"party may, or may not, be able to prove at trial.” 515 U.S. at","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"313 (internal quotation marks omitted). As we have recently","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"summarized the rule of Johnson, a “public official may not","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"immediately appeal a fact-related dispute about the pretrial","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"record, namely, whether or not the evidence in the pretrial","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"RIOS V. CITY OF AZUSA 9","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"record was sufficient to show a genuine issue of fact for","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"trial.” Peck, 51 F.4th at 885 (quoting Estate of Anderson v.","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"Marsh, 985 F.3d 726, 731 (9th Cir. 2021)).","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"We have observed that “the distinction between making","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"sure that only ‘reasonable inferences’ are drawn (which we","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"may do) and answering questions of ‘evidence sufficiency’","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"(which we may not) is often difficult to discern.” Peck, 51","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"F.4th at 885. In this case, however, it is not difficult at all.","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"Defendants make no argument about what inferences","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"should be drawn from the facts before the district court that","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"does not first assume that Brown’s declaration should have","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"been excluded. Crucially, they do not argue that, if Brown’s","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"declaration is included as part of the summary-judgment","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"record, they are nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"on the excessive-force claim. See Blankenhorn v. City of","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"Orange, 485 F.3d 463, 481 (9th Cir. 2007) (recognizing that","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"clearly established law prohibits “gang-tackling without first","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"attempting a less violent means of arresting a relatively calm","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"trespass suspect—especially one who . . . was at the moment","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"not actively resisting arrest”); Drummond ex rel. Drummond","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"v. City of Anaheim, 343 F.3d 1052, 1061–62 (9th Cir. 2003)","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"(recognizing that clearly established law prohibits the","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"application of bodyweight pressure to the back of a","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"compliant individual).","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"Instead, defendants’ argument is about which facts were","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"properly before the district court—specifically, whether the","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"facts set out in the Brown declaration should have been part","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"of the summary-judgment record, or whether the district","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"court should instead have excluded that declaration as a","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"discovery sanction. That is a question about evidence","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"sufficiency that we may not review in an interlocutory","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"10 RIOS V. CITY OF AZUSA","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"appeal. We thus lack jurisdiction to review the district","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"court’s denial of qualified immunity.","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"In an effort to avoid Johnson, defendants frame their","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"argument not as one of evidence sufficiency but instead as","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"raising the question whether the district court abused its","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"discretion in denying their motion to strike the Brown","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"declaration under Rule 37. That framing runs into a different","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"problem: Discovery rulings are not “final decisions” and","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"therefore are not immediately appealable. 28 U.S.C. § 1291;","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"see Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 107–08","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"(2009); Admiral Ins. Co. v. United States Dist. Ct. for Dist.","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"of Ariz., 881 F.2d 1486, 1490 (9th Cir. 1989).","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"Defendants invoke pendent appellate jurisdiction, which","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"allows us to “review an ‘otherwise non-appealable ruling’ in","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"certain limited situations when it ‘is inextricably intertwined","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"with or necessary to ensure meaningful review of the order","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"properly before us on interlocutory appeal.’” CDK Glob.","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"LLC v. Brnovich, 16 F.4th 1266, 1273 (9th Cir. 2021)","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"(quoting Arc of Cal. v. Douglas, 757 F.3d 975, 992–93 (9th","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"Cir. 2014)); see Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 514 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"35, 50–51 (1995). Defendants argue that review of the Rule","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"37 question is necessary to ensure meaningful review of the","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"qualified-immunity question. As they put it, an appellate","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"court “can only conduct a meaningful review if it knows","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"what evidence was properly within the district court’s","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"purview when it ruled on the summary judgment motion.”","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"But because we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"qualified immunity, there is “no appealable claim on which","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"a pendent claim could attach.” McKinney v. Duplain, 463","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"F.3d 679, 693 (7th Cir. 2006).","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"Finally, even if the order denying qualified immunity","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"were appealable, qualified immunity could be available only","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"RIOS V. CITY OF AZUSA 11","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"to the individual defendants, and only with respect to the","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"claims under section 1983. Defendants also seek to appeal","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"the remaining claims in the case, asserting that pendent","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"appellate jurisdiction allows interlocutory review of the","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"denial of summary judgment on those claims in conjunction","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"with the qualified-immunity appeal. But because there is no","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"proper appeal of the denial of qualified immunity, there is no","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"appeal to which the other claims can be pendent. We","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"therefore dismiss the appeal in its entirety.","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"DISMISSED.","paragraph_id":"para_312"}],"word_count":2516,"cites":["515 U.S. 304","515\nU.S. 304","457 U.S. 800","572 U.S. 765","472 U.S. 511","558 U.S. 100","514 U.S.\n35","51 F.4th 877","985 F.3d 726","485 F.3d 463","343 F.3d 1052","881 F.2d 1486","16 F.4th 1266","757 F.3d 975","463\nF.3d 679"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"4aae7a736bf213caf9bba785d4d4418ad444d9337d665b3a3543913894239ad3","source_url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/20/24-5734.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-09-30T03:44:17.171+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20","verification":{"stored_sha256":"4aae7a736bf213caf9bba785d4d4418ad444d9337d665b3a3543913894239ad3","recomputed_sha256":"4aae7a736bf213caf9bba785d4d4418ad444d9337d665b3a3543913894239ad3","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-14T06:27:50.125Z"}},"hash":"sha256:8ae9edbc6391d8edf44131426d5ff32245b41796f88e53760b47c476833b2c9c","version":"legal-2026-10-14","expires":"2026-10-15T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-14+legal-2026-10-14+2026-10-14T06:24:22","content_hash":"sha256:8ae9edbc6391d8edf44131426d5ff32245b41796f88e53760b47c476833b2c9c","revalidate_after":"2026-10-14T07:27:50.283Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-b205e83284090bbdcb0d0ef8fe71b554","response_hash":"sha256:8ae9edbc6391d8edf44131426d5ff32245b41796f88e53760b47c476833b2c9c"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T11:45:12.667Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca9-24-5734-2026-08-20&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":12654}}