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