Sowell v. Target Corp. » The Florida E-Discovery Case Law Database » Levin College of Law » University of Florida

Sowell v. Target Corp.

Sowell v. Target Corp.

Case Date: 05/28/2014
Citation: Sowell v. Target Corp., No. 5:14–cv–93–RS–GRJ, 2014 WL 2208058 (N.D. Fla. May 28, 2014)
Court Type: Federal District
Court: Northern District of Florida (N.D. Fla.)
Judge: Federal Magistrate Judge: Gary R. Jones
Rule(s): Rule 26
Issues:

Defendant sought a protective order of surveillance footage of a slip-and-fall accident, asserting work product privilege. Alternatively, Defendant sought to delay the production of the surveillance footage until after Plaintiff’s deposition had been taken.

Resolution:

The Court denied Defendant’s protective order. The surveillance footage was initially recorded in the ordinary course of business and was not prepared in anticipation of litigation. Further, Defendant failed to provide any evidence that preserving the video surveillance from automatic erasure was done in anticipation of litigation and not as part of ordinary business practices. Additionally, because the surveillance footage was substantive evidence and not evidence used for impeachment purposes, the Court denied Defendant’s  request to delay production of the video until after Plaintiff’s deposition.

Relevant Documents:

Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 12)

Response in Opposition to Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 15)

Order on Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 21)

E-Discovery Issues: Motion for Protective Order
E-discovery Tags: Data Retention, Preservation and Collection, Privilege, Sources of ESI, Work Product
E-discovery subjects: Surveillance Footage

Published: January 29th, 2018

Category: Uncategorized


Deprecated: Theme without comments.php is deprecated since version 3.0.0 with no alternative available. Please include a comments.php template in your theme. in /h/cnswww-ediscovery.law/ediscovery.law.ufl.edu/htdocs/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5516

Comments are closed.