Does the court decline to consider excerpts from the depositions of defendants in a civil case where plaintiffs rely on them as evidence of probable cause or qualified immunity?

Although plaintiffs have provided excerpts from defendants' depositions, as noted above, they have not lodged the complete depositions; the court therefore declines to consider the excerpts out of context. In addition, both the probable cause and qualified immunity inquiries are objective: what would a reasonable officer understand or know? See United States v. Struckman, 603 F.3d 731, 740 (9th Cir. 2010) ("Probable cause is an objective standard[,] and the officer's subjective intention in exercising his discretion to arrest is immaterial in judging whether his actions were reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes." (internal citations, quotation marks omitted)); Chappell v. Mandeville, 706 F.3d 1052, 1056 (9th Cir. 2013) ("Whether qualified immunity applies . . . turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.") (internal citations, quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, plaintiffs' reliance on the officers' testimony ultimately does not advance their argument. To the extent plaintiffs claim they are entitled to reconsideration because of "new or different facts," they are mistaken.