Dodson v. Persell – Case Brief
Dodson v. Persell, 390 So.2d 704 (Fla. 1980).
Facts: Dodson (P) was involved in an auto accident allegedly caused by Persell (D). In a suit to recover for personal injuries, Dodson propounded interrogatories to discover whether Persell had photographs or movies of the incident and if so to obtain copies and other information pertaining to them. Persell objected on the grounds that such evidence was work product and the trial court sustained. Persell later admitted such evidence over Dodson’s objection and the court entered judgment for Persell. The appellate court affirmed and Dodson appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.
Issue: What are the rules regarding the production of photograph and film evidence through discovery?
Holding and Rules:
1. The existence of surveillance movies and photographs is discoverable in every instance.
2. The contents are discoverable if the materials will be used as evidence either substantively or for impeachment.
3. If the movies or photographs will not be used as evidence by the holder, the contents are discoverable only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.
4. The party seeking discovery must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to observe the movies or photographs before their presentation as evidence.
5. Within the trial court’s discretion, the surveilling party has the right to depose the party or witness filmed before being required to produce the contents of the surveillance information for inspection.
If such evidence is relevant and is unique or otherwise unavailable, it may still be discoverable even if it is work product.
Disposition: Reversed and remanded for new trial.
See DiMichel v. South Buffalo Railroad Co.