Whether Scott v. Harris's narrow exception to the summary judgment standard—permitting courts to resolve disputed facts when video evidence is blatantly contradictory—applies when dashcam footage is inconclusive and incomplete rather than conclusively establishing the non-moving party's account as unreasonable as a matter of law

No question identified. : Judgment Sought to Be Reviewed On an appeal from summary judgment, a divided panel used inconclusive and incomplete dashcam footage to determine that it “need not... view[ ] [the evidence] in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,” and could instead determine for itself that a “calm and nonthreatening” woman posed a threat to—and failed to comply with the orders of—a police officer sufficient to justify the officer’s decision to threaten her with a taser. App. A at 7, 8 n.2. In so doing, the panel majority egregiously misconstrued this Court’s precedent that requires courts at the summaryjudgment stage to view facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party unless that party’s story is so “blatantly contradicted by the record .. . that no reasonable jury could believe it,” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). By applying Scott here, where the record evidence is inconclusive and incomplete, the panel majority invited (if not required) courts in the Eighth Circuit to resolve disputed facts at summary judgment. This case represents an alarming expansion of the circumscribed rule announced in Scott, one that sharply contrasts with its treatment by sister circuits. See, e.g., Aguirre v. City of San Antonio, 995 F.3d 395, 410 (5th Cir. 2021) (“Scott was not an invitation for trial courts to abandon the standard principles of summary judgment by making credibility determinations or otherwise weighing the parties’ opposing evidence against each other any time a video is introduced into evidence.”); El v. City of Pittsburgh, 975 F.3d 327, 338 (3d Cir. 2020) (“We should apply Scot?’s narrow exception carefully and strictly, rather than viewing it as an invitation to find our own facts.”); Witt v. W. Va. State Police, Troop 2, 633 F.3d 272, 276 (4th Cir. 2011) (“Scott does not hold that courts should reject a plaintiff's account on summary judgment whenever documentary evidence, such as a video, offers some support for a governmental officer’s version of events.” (emphasis in original)). Applicant timely filed a petition with the Eighth Circuit seeking both a panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, and the circuit court sua sponte requested a response. Although the Eighth Circuit ultimately declined the petition, both Judge Kelly (who dissented on the original panel) and Judge Erickson (who was uninvolved with the original panel) would have granted it. See App. B. Reasons Why an Extension of Time Is Warranted Good cause exists for an extension of time to prepare a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case. In addition to this case, undersigned counsel at the Institute for Justice have pressing obligations in other cases that are pending in this Court and other courts, including: e ongoing work on a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court in S.B. v. Jefferson Parish School Board, Fifth Circuit No. 22-30139; e ongoing litigation in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Taylor v. LeBlanc, No. 21-30625; e ongoing litigation in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, Gibson v. Goldston, No. 22-1757; e ongoing litigation in the Northern District of California, Quifonez v. United States, No. 3:22-cv-3195; e ongoing litigation in the District Court for the District of Columbia, Martin v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, No. 1:23-cv-00618; e ongoing litigation in the Western District of Louisiana, Rosales v. Lewis, No. 1:22-cv-5838; e ongoing litigation in the District of Minnesota, Mohamud v. Weyker, No. 0:17-cv-2069; e ongoing litigation in the Western District of Tennessee, Hohenberg v. Shelby County, Tennessee, No. 2:20-cv-02432; e ongoing litigation in the Western District of Texas, Schott v. Babb, No. 5:23cv-706; e ongoing litigation in the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal, N’Dakpri v. Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology, Docket No. pending; e ongoing litigation in the Tennessee Court of Appeals, McEwen v. Tennessee Department of Education, Nos. and e ongoing l