Spencer v. Beverly
| Decision Date | 07 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--945,74--945 |
| Citation | 307 So.2d 461 |
| Parties | Claire M. SPENCER et al., Petitioners, v. Lillian M. BEVERLY and A. D. Beverly, her husband, Respondents, |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Marjorie D. Gadarian, Jones, Paine & Foster, West Palm Beach, for petitioners.
Terry N. Freeman, Beverly & Freeman, West Palm Beach, for respondents.
Certiorari denied.
The defendants in a personal injury case have petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the trial court requiring petitioners to answer eight interrogatories pertaining to surveillance movies of respondent Lillian M. Beverly.
It appears that petitioners answered interrogatory number one acknowledging that they had taken surveillance movies, but they objected to the remaining interrogatories. While many of the interrogatories pertain to the date and place of taking the type of equipment used, the amount of footage and the custodian thereof, the most telling interrogatory requires the respondents to state what activities are portrayed in said movies. Respondents objected to the unanswered interrogatories on the ground that the information was privileged as work product but the court directed they be answered.
The trial court noted that petitioners intended to use the movies solely for impeachment purposes, a reason for precluding discovery which was rejected in a recent case from the Third District Court of Appeal. Reynolds v. Hofmann, Fla.App., 305 So.2d 294, 1974. The trial court held that where a litigant reasonably anticipates he may use surveillance movies for impeachment they should be subject to discovery. In Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, Fla.1970, 236 So.2d 108, the court stated:
Rule 1.280(b)(1), RCP, makes all matter relevant to the subject matter of the pending action subject to discovery unless it is privileged. The work product of counsel is generally considered to be privileged and not subject to discovery unless unusual circumstances demand its production. 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil §§ 2021--2034. If matter is to be introduced into evidence, it is not privileged as work product. Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, supra.
Much confusion exists as a result of the attempt to differentiate between...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Iowa Ins. Inst. v. Core Grp. of the Iowa Ass'n for Justice
...will [it] not also be substantive evidence going directly to ... injuries and damages?” Spencer v. Beverly, 307 So.2d 461, 462 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975) (Downey, J., specially concurring). Whether or not such information has impeachment value, it is in my view probative of a claimant's physica......
-
Dodson v. Persell
...and contents of such materials are discoverable. Corack v. Travelers Ins. Co., 347 So.2d 641 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Spencer v. Beverly, 307 So.2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). The First District Court has held that a party may discover the existence of surveillance films, but has not addressed the......
-
Binger v. King Pest Control
...rules are "to eliminate surprise, to encourage settlement, and to assist in arriving at the truth." Spencer v. Beverly, 307 So.2d 461, 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)(Downey, J., concurring), cert. denied, 314 So.2d 590 (Fla.1975). We recently reiterated those A search for truth and justice can be ......
-
Camelback Contractors, Inc. v. Industrial Commission, 1
...at 91, 402 P.2d at 216. We agree with the reasoning expressed in this connection in a specially concurring opinion in Spencer v. Beverly, 307 So.2d 461 (Fla.App.1975), noted in 35 A.L.R.3d 412, § 17(b) (1979 Supp.), where it was "Much confusion exists as a result of the attempt to different......