To what extent should discovery be allowed from third-party eyewitnesses when the only evidence in support of 'what actually happened' is a soundless video and the defendants' self-serving testimony?

QUESTION PRESENTED la.This Court has permitted “limited discovery” in cases where the defendant has asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in its answer. To what extent should discovery be allowed from third-party eyewitnesses when the only evidence in support of “what actually happened” is a soundless video and the defendants’ self-serving testimony? 1b.This Court has held that if video evidence “blatantly contradicts” the plaintiffs testimony, a trial court may conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute that would preclude summary judgment. But circuit courts of appeals throughout the country have held that soundless video does not provide conclusive evidence that would permit judgment as a matter of law. Did the lower courts err by denying Petitioner’s request for limited discovery when the only evidence in support of Respondents’ qualifiedimmunity defense was a soundless video and their self-serving testimony? 2. This Court has long held that municipalities can be liable for civil-rights violations if there is evidence that the need for more or different training of their law-enforcement officers is so obvious and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need for additional training. But without discovery, plaintiffs have no way of knowing what training the municipality ii actually provided. How can a plaintiff satisfy this Court’s “plausibility” requirement for pleading a cause of action in the absence of such discovery?