Surveillance Discovery
In Herrick v. Wilson, the New Jersey Superior Court held that defendants are required to produce copies of the surveillance videos in its possession to the plaintiffs before the plaintiffs are deposed. The plaintiffs in Herrick were involved in a car accident when they were struck by a vehicle driven by a valet driver at Trump Taj Mahal Casino as they were walking across the street. The defendants claimed that they did not want to produce the video surveillance of the accident before the deposition so that the plaintiffs’ memories of the accident were not influenced by the video. The Law Division rejected this claim and held that surveillance that was conducted in the routine course of business but which happened to catch a car or truck accident but be provided to the plaintiffs when requested, without any requirement of deposition testimony being provided first. The court held there is a fundamental difference between video surveillance conducted during litigation to impeach a witness and video surveillance conducted in the normal course of business that happens to show the actual car accident or truck accident. Posted by: New Jersey Criminal Lawyer, Jeffery Hark