The district court may thus have been improvident to discount these witness statements. Nonetheless, we do not decide the summary judgment issue here. We have noted that the district court is better qualified to make a summary judgment decision in the first instance.
Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v. 1–800–Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241, 244 (2d Cir.2004). There is no indication in the district court's current decision whether the grounds for granting summary judgment would remain valid if the court had fully considered the content of the witness statements.
Cf. id. Furthermore, while the qualified immunity analysis does not duplicate the merits analysis, it may still be affected by the testimony and affidavits in question. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand to the district court for consideration of the summary judgment motion on both the merits and qualified immunity, including proper consideration of the testimony and affidavits of Ames, the Hunts, and Wilson.