same seven seconds they fell to the ground with Witt and inadvertently struck him on the head with a flashlight. The parties’ dispute as to what actually happened during these seven seconds is critical to the summary judgment analysis, because that dispute goes directly to the reasonableness of the troopers’ use of force. In sum, the documentary evidence in this case — the dashboard video — does not “blatantly contradict[ ]” Witt’s account of the facts; therefore, it “does not establish that the officers are entitled to summary judgment.” See York v. City of Las Cruces, 523 F.3d 1205, 1210-11 (10th Cir.2008) (refusing to direct grant of summary judgment when an audio tape recorded “only part of the incident involving the [plaintiff] and the police officers”); Blaylock, 504 F.3d at 414 (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Hughes, 606 F.3d
holding documentary evidence did not establish that plaintiffs version of events was blatantly and demonstrably false holding that apparel cleaners submission of false statements of their receipts a percentage of which were to be paid to the united states did not constitute false claims within the meaning of the federal false claims act holding that false arrest is one means of committing false imprisonment holding that documentary evidence pertaining to the asylum applicant himself and to the events in which he was involved  can independently establish facts essential to  an asylum claim holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative