Workers' Compensation

Editor:
Chris T. Archer, Esquire

Surveillance video held to be discoverable by use of a subpoena ducestecum pursuant to Rule 56.01 (b) (3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. State ex rel. David Feltz v. Bob Sight Ford, Inc., No. 72969(Mo. App. W.D, May 31, 2011), Hardwick, C.J.

A surveillance video tape taken of a claimant discoverable by use of a subpoena duces tecum if it is otherwise not a statement as defined in Section 287.215, RSMo 2005?

Claimant sought the discovery by deposition of a video surveillance tape taken of a claimant seeking worker's compensation benefits.  The claimant filed for permanent writ of mandamus forcing the appearance of the adjuster and any videotaped surveillance relying on the provisions of Section 287.560, RSMo that provides: "Any party shall be entitled to process to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books, and papers, and at his own cost to take and use the depositions in like manner in civil cases in the circuit court,."

The court found that Rule 56.01(b) (3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure defines the scope of discovery and includes video as a statement that need be produced.

The Missouri Bar Courts Bulletin, 11-Jul