We live in the age of cameras. Not only do most of us carry one in our pockets courtesy of our cell phones, but they are also nearly everywhere we go. Businesses have surveillance cameras. Residences have Ring cameras. You can even find them on public transportation like buses. One benefit of this pervasive surveillance is that accidents are often captured on video. If there’s a dispute about what happened, we can, as they say in sports, “go to the tape.”
Still, in personal injury lawsuits, when a plaintiff requests that the defendant produce a surveillance video of the accident, the defendant may resist. The most common rationale offered by the defense is that the plaintiff’s deposition should occur first—so the plaintiff testifies based on memory, untainted by the video.
However, state and federal courts in Florida have largely rejected this approach and have instead ordered the production of surveillance footage before the plaintiff’s deposition. These courts consistently emphasize that withholding critical, relevant evidence is contrary to the principles of civil discovery, which promote the free and timely exchange of relevant information.
Two decisions—one federal and one state—underscore this point.
Russo v. Moran Foods, LLC
In Russo v. Moran Foods, LLC, No. 17-14314-CIV, 2017 WL 9511026 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 28, 2017), the plaintiffs were injured in a slip-and-fall at the defendant’s store. The incident was recorded on the store’s surveillance system. When the plaintiffs requested the video in discovery, the defendant refused to produce it before their depositions, arguing it preferred the plaintiffs rely solely on their recollections.
Magistrate Judge Shaniek M. Maynard granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel, ordering the video’s production prior to deposition. In her order, Judge Maynard noted that while some decisions permit delayed production, the “weight of the case law does seem to favor” pre-deposition disclosure. Summarizing the relevant line of cases, she wrote: “[L]itigants should produce substantive information and materials of primary evidentiary value in the regular course of discovery as it is found. A party should not strategically time the production of a relevant discovery item around the production of other discovery. Generally speaking, such a practice is administratively burdensome as well as inconsistent with the policy against litigating by surprise.”
Business Telecommunications Services, Inc. v. Madrigal
In Business Telecommunications Services, Inc. v. Madrigal, 265 So. 3d 676 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), the Third District Court of Appeal addressed a similar scenario. The trial court had ordered the defendant to produce a date-of-accident surveillance video before the plaintiff’s deposition. The defendant sought certiorari review, which the appellate court denied.
The court distinguished between “date-of-accident” surveillance (capturing the incident itself) and “post-accident” surveillance (recordings taken later, often to observe a claimant’s daily activities). The court upheld the trial judge’s discretion, emphasizing that pre-deposition production was appropriate because the video pertained directly to the incident—not as an impeachment tool. As Judge Salter explained: “This category of date-of-accident videotape is distinguishable from post-accident surveillance videos of a plaintiff’s activities.”
Further, the court cited the dissent in McClure v. Publix, noting that “in Florida the vast weight of authority rejects the withholding of security video until after the plaintiff’s deposition is taken, unless specific factual circumstances in a particular case provide for a contrary result.”
Conclusion
If a defendant refuses to produce surveillance footage capturing the incident at the heart of your client’s injury claim, seek judicial intervention. The prevailing weight of authority in Florida supports your position. Courts increasingly recognize that fairness in discovery requires timely access to such essential evidence.