TARGET Corp. v. VOGEL

Decision Date08 September 2010
Docket NumberNo. 4D10-1074.,4D10-1074.
Citation41 So.3d 962
PartiesTARGET CORPORATION, a foreign corporation for profit, d/b/a Target, and David Hutchings, individually, Petitioners, v. Tracee D. VOGEL, Respondent.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Warren B. Kwavnick and David F. Cooney of Cooney Trybus Kwavnick Peets, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.

Jeffrey R. Rollins of Steinger, Iscoe & Greene, P.A., Port St. Lucie, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

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 plaintiff's deposition, of four photographs of the accident scene and a security video of the plaintiff's slip and fall. We deny the petition, finding no departure from the essential requirements of law.

At a hearing on the plaintiff's 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 plaintiff's motions to compel, requiring production of 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • McClure v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 6, 2013
    ...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......
  • Wang v. Omni Hotels Mgmt. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • August 16, 2019
    ...which is "often granted qualified protection from discovery under the work product privilege." Id. (citing Target Corp. v. Vogel, 41 So. 3d 962, 963 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)). In addition, Plaintiff cited Crabtree v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP, No. 8:17-cv-2324-T-JSS,2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24......
  • Schulte v. Ncl Ltd
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • January 25, 2011
    ...thetape into work product protected from disclosure, the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida in Target Corp. v. Vogel, 41 So. 3d 962, 963 (Fla. Dist. App. 2010), is persuasive. There, the Court expressly held that a video of the accident itself is not work product and......
  • Race v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., HHDCV126030536S.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Superior Court
    • November 29, 2012
    ... ... covert investigator's video of a personal injury ... plaintiff. In Target Corporation v. Vogel, 41 So.3d ... 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), the plaintiff Target challenged ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Motor vehicle accident and other personal injury cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Small-Firm Practice Tools - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • April 1, 2023
    ...films and photographs are considered attorney-work product. [ Dodson v. Persell , 390 So.2d 704, 707 (Fla. 1980); Target Corp. v. Vogel , 41 So.3d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).] The existence of surveillance movies, videos, films and photographs is discoverable without exception. Moreover, the c......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT