Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

January 16, 2015 by admin

Trial court errs in allowing a plaintiff to view surveillance footage before plaintiff’s deposition

40 Fla. L. Weekly D195a


Torts — Automobile accident — Discovery — Trial court departed from
essential requirements of law in permitting plaintiff to view a post-accident
surveillance video before her deposition — Fairness requires that a defendant
be permitted to depose plaintiff before turning over a surveillance video

GWENDOLYN HANKERSON, Petitioner, v. NICOLE WILEY, Respondent. 4th District.
Case No. 4D14-4207. January 7, 2015. Petition for writ of certiorari to the
Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Mily
Rodriguez-Powell, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 13-16053 03. Counsel: Kansas R.
Gooden of Boyd & Jenerette, P.A., Jacksonville, and Thomas A. Berger of Boyd
& Jenerette, P.A., Coconut Creek, for petitioner. Joseph Abdallah of Kanner
& Pintaluga, P.A., Delray Beach, for respondent.
(Gross, J.) Gwendolyn Hankerson, the defendant in an auto negligence case
below, seeks certiorari review of a trial court order which permits the
plaintiff to view a post-accident surveillance video before a deposition.
Because the benefit of the surveillance video may be irreparably lost if the
plaintiff is permitted to view the video before Hankerson has an opportunity to
question her, irreparable harm for certiorari jurisdiction has been shown, so we
grant the writ and quash the order of the circuit court.
The trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of law. Under
Dodson v. Persell, 390 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1980), fairness requires that a
defendant be permitted to depose the plaintiff before turning over a
surveillance video. The relevant portion of Dodson provides:

Fifth, we recognize that there is some merit in respondent’s
contention that surveillance can prevent fraudulent and overstated claims. In
this regard, fairness requires that we allow the use of surveillance
materials to establish any inconsistency in a claim by allowing the surveilling
party to depose the party surveilled after the movies have been taken or
evidence acquired but before their contents are presented for the adversary’s
pretrial examination
. We note that under present procedural time
constraints, the surveilling party in a personal injury action ordinarily has
the opportunity to take discovery in this manner without any court order. In
our view, the trial court’s discretion to allow the discovery deposition before
disclosure is an appropriate middle road to ensure that all relevant evidence
reaches the trier of fact in a fair and accurate fashion
. See Jenkins v.
Rainner
, 69 N.J. 50, 350 A.2d 473 (1976).

Id. at 708 (emphasis added).
We agree with the third district’s application of Dodson, which has
the effect of establishing a bright line rule regarding work product,
post-accident surveillance videos in personal injury cases. Based upon
Dodson, the third district has granted second-tier certiorari review of a
county court order which required production of a surveillance video before a
deposition. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. H Rehab, Inc., 56 So. 3d
55, 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (granting second-tier certiorari of a circuit court
order affirming trial court’s order requiring production of surveillance before
deposition); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. H Rehab, Inc., 77 So. 3d
724, 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (granting second-tier certiorari for the second time
between these parties and remanding “with instructions that State Farm is not
required to produce the surveillance video/DVD prior to taking the deposition”).
The essence of the holding in the H Rehab cases is that a trial court
abuses its discretion where it permits a plaintiff to view a post-accident
surveillance video before allowing a defendant to depose the plaintiff. A bright
line rule is preferable in this area because it will impose uniformity and avoid
disparate rulings based primarily on the identity of the trial judge. (Warner
and Taylor, JJ., concur.)

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982