Elaine Smith v. Miami Valley Hosp.

── Elaine Smith v. Miami Valley Hosp. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 26a0116p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ ELAINE R. SMITH, guardian for Thomas K. Irwin, a │ protected person, │ Plaintiff-Appellee, │ > No. 24-3983 │ v. │ │ │ MIAMI VALLEY HOSPITAL and PREMIER HEALTH │ PARTNERS, care of Cara W. Powers, Registered Agent; │ TRENT DAVIS, │ Defendants-Appellants. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton. No. 3:23-cv-00365—Michael J. Newman, District Judge. Argued: March 18, 2026 Decided and Filed: April 20, 2026 Before: BUSH, READLER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Catherine H. Jackson, BIESER, GREER & LANDIS, LLP, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellants. Robert G. Kamenec, FIEGER, FIEGER, KENNEY & HARRINGTON, P.C., Southfield, Michigan, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: John F. Haviland, Amber R. Mullaly, Jaren A. Hardesty, BIESER, GREER & LANDIS, LLP, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellants. Robert G. Kamenec, FIEGER, FIEGER, KENNEY & HARRINGTON, P.C., Southfield, Michigan, for Appellee.  No. 24-3983 Smith v. Miami Valley Hosp., et al. Page 2 _________________ OPINION _________________ JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. After exiting Miami Valley Hospital, Thomas K. Irwin publicly urinated. Following a brief pursuit, Officer Trent Davis tackled Irwin, leaving Irwin permanently incapacitated. Elaine R. Smith, Irwin’s mother and guardian, sued Davis and his employers (among others) for excessive force and state-law torts. Davis answered, and Smith served discovery requests on him and his employers. They did not respond. Instead, they moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and to stay discovery. The summary judgment record includes a video that shows all relevant events (albeit without audio). An affidavit from Davis explaining his version of events was also attached to the summary judgment papers. Smith asked the district court to deny Davis’s motion to stay discovery and sought a deferral of a ruling on summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) 1 based on Davis and his employers’ failure to engage with discovery prior to moving for summary judgment. The district court denied the motion to stay discovery, ordered further discovery, and deferred ruling on the summary judgment motion until after the close of discovery. 2 The district court explained that additional discovery was necessary because “[s]ome differences appear when the allegations in Defendant Davis’s affidavit are compared to the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint.” R. 56, Order, PageID 897. The district court did not explain how the video fit into th