Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Snead v. American Export Lines, Inc.

United States District Court · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDiscoveryWork productSurveillance evidenceRule 26Rule 26(b)(3)surveillance filmspersonal injury

Facts

Hubert L. Snead sued to recover damages for injuries allegedly suffered aboard a ship operated by the defendant. The plaintiff served interrogatories asking whether the defendant had taken secret motion pictures of him and, if so, the details of how, when, where, and by whom they were taken, along with information about other surveillance and investigations. The defendant refused to answer. The court addressed the permissible scope and timing of discovery of such surveillance materials.

Issue

Whether, and at what stage, a plaintiff in a personal injury action may obtain discovery of surveillance films and related surveillance or investigative information gathered by the defendant in anticipation of litigation.

Rule

Surveillance films are relevant and not privileged, but because they are prepared in anticipation of litigation they are subject to Rule 26(b)(3). The defense must disclose the existence of surveillance films or be barred from using them at trial; if the defense intends to use them, the films and details of their production must be disclosed after the plaintiff has been fully deposed about his injuries and disabilities and before the final pretrial conference. As to other surveillance or investigation, if it will result in testimony at trial the plaintiff may discover the identities of those who investigated him, but not the times, dates, and results of that investigative work.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Ortega sued Lakeshore Parcel Transit in federal court in Chicago, alleging a back injury from a loading-dock accident. Before Nina's deposition, she served interrogatories asking whether the company had secretly recorded her doing daily activities and demanding copies of any such footage and all production details.

How should the court most likely rule on Nina's request under the governing doctrine?

Explanation. The majority rule treats surveillance films as relevant and not evidentiary privileged, but also as materials prepared in anticipation of litigation subject to Rule 26(b)(3). To balance impeachment value against fairness, the defendant is entitled first to depose the plaintiff fully about injuries, effects, and present disabilities. After that deposition, if the films exist and will be used at trial, they must be exhibited and interrogatories about their production answered. (Derived from Snead v. American Export Lines, Inc. (n.d.).)