In her recent opinion, U.S. District Court Judge Lynne A. Sitarski of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania distinguished between a surveillance video and a security video in the context of discovery in a personal injury case. Sitarski's opinion builds on existing case law to address when a defendant must disclose and produce a surveillance video or a security video to a personal injury plaintiff.

Background

In Dietzel v. Costco Wholesale, the plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell on an uneven sidewalk when he attempted to enter the defendant's retail store. During discovery, the plaintiff sought "any and all video surveillance" from the defendant on the date of his alleged injury. The plaintiff made that request prior to his deposition. The defendant objected to the request. According to the defendant, "'even if there was video surveillance of the alleged incident,' the defendant need not produce it until after the plaintiff's depositions are completed." The defendant argued that postponing disclosure until after the plaintiff's deposition would ensure that the plaintiff's testimony reflected his personal memory of the incident, rather than what he might see on video, and enable the defendant to impeach the plaintiff regarding any inconsistencies between his testimony and the video footage. The plaintiff filed a motion to compel the production of any surveillance video.