TARGET CORPORATION, A FOREIGN CORPORATION FOR PROFIT, D/B/A TARGET, AND DAVID HUTCHINGS, INDIVIDUALLY, PETITIONERS,
v.
TRACEE D. VOGEL, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Target Corporation petitioned for certiorari review of a discovery order requiring production of accident scene photographs and security video before the plaintiff's deposition. The court denied the petition, finding the discovery order did not depart from the essential requirements of law and distinguishing the protective work product analysis from Dodson v. Persell.
The discovery order does not violate the essential requirements of law. The security video is discoverable evidence under the Rules of Civil Procedure and not protected work product. Even if the photographs are characterized as work product, the circuit court did not abuse its broad discretion in ordering their production before the deposition, as Target made no showing of how the production violates the policy against fraudulent and overstated claims.
[1] A circuit court's discovery order compelling production of accident scene photographs and security video prior to a plaintiff's deposition will not be disturbed absent a…
[2] A video recording of an accident itself, as opposed to surveillance films taken by investigators after an accident, is discoverable evidence and not protected work produc…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the fundamental purpose of discovery rules supporting the trial court's order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Tracee Vogel slipped and fell at a Target store. Target possessed four photographs of the accident scene and a security video documenting th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Rules Of Civil Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a petition by Target Corporation seeking certiorari review of a circuit court’s discovery order. The order compelled production, prior to the taking of the plaintiffs deposition, of four photographs of the accident scene and a security video of the plaintiffs slip and fall. We deny the petition, finding no departure from the essential requirements of law.
At a hearing on the plaintiffs motion to compel production, Target’s counsel argued that the plaintiff should be deposed before she saw the video and the photographs; he contended that the plaintiff was not accurately portraying the incident, citing medical records indicating that the plaintiff told her doctor she fell flat on her back, a fact refuted by the video. The plaintiff said that she should be allowed to refresh her memory of the incident with the security video and accident scene photographs before being deposed. The trial court granted the plaintiffs motions to compel, requiring production óf the photos and videos prior to her deposition.
We distinguish Dodson v. Persell, 390 So.2d 704 (Fla.1980), upon which Target relies. That case involved surveillance films of a purportedly injured plaintiff, made after the accident at issue. Dodson v. Persell, 365 So.2d 413, 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), rev’d, 390 So.2d 704 (Fla.1980). Such films, usually taken by defense private investigators, were characterized by the supreme court as falling under the work product privilege, unless intended for use at trial. Id. at 707. The video in this case was not protected work product, prepared “to aid counsel in trying the case.” Id. Rather, it was a video of the accident itself, discoverable evidence under the Rules of Civil Procedure, which are designed “to prevent the use of surprise, trickery, bluff and legal gymnastics.” Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108, 111 (Fla.1970).
Even if the photographs of the accident scene are characterized as work product, given the circuit court’s broad discretion in overseeing discovery, we find no abuse of discretion in the order requiring their production before Vogel’s deposition. Target did not make any showing as to how production of the photographs violates Dodson’s policy of timing the disclosure of discovery to prevent fraudulent and overstated claims.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
GROSS, C.J., POLEN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCLURE v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 124 So. 3d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…eks cer-tiorari review of an order compelling her deposition prior to the production of a store security video of the slip and fall. She contends that the court’s order departs from the essential requirements of law based upon Target Corp. v. Vogel, 41 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). As set forth below, we deny the writ, finding that the trial court’s order was not an abuse of judicial discretion and, as such, not contrary to our Target opinion. Subsequent to filing suit against the Publix grocery store, Mc…1 / 3
-
Dollar Gen. Corp. v. Babcock, 75 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…PER CURIAM, DENIED. See Target Corp. v. Vogel, 41 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). WOLF, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.…
-
Bus. Telecomms. Servs., Inc. v. Madrigal, 265 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…arding the effect of the alleged injury on the 3 claimant. See, e.g., Willie-Koonce v. Miami Sunshine Transfer & Tours Corp., 233 So. 3d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). Our sibling district court applied this distinction in Target Corp. v. Vogel, 41 So. 3d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), finding no abuse of discretion in an order requiring production of accident scene photos before the plaintiff’s deposition. In a later opinion, however, that court denied certiorari review of an order denying a plaintiff’s m…
Authorities Cited
- Dodson v. Persell, 390 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1980)
- Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1970)
- Dodson v. Persell, 365 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)