The issue arose in A-13-686492-C and a telephonic conference. I am told the defendant objected to producing CCTV video of a fall at a hotel until after Plaintiff’s deposition is taken because it was potential impeachment evidence. Plaintiff argued that the video must be immediately produced because it is not sub rosa video. DC Beecroft stated that absent specific facts to exempt it, generally this video is not produced until after Plaintiff’s deposition. On a related note, an early deposition of Plaintiff only on liability was ok, then the video could be produced and Plaintiff could give a second deposition later restricted to damages only. As this was a telephonic conference, no minute order exists reflecting the arguments. Regardless, a DCRR was filed on June 6, 2014 that memorialized the ruling.
Plaintiff objected to the district court, who overruled DC Beecroft and ordered the video produced per NRCP 16.1(a)(1)(B) before plaintiff was deposed. It does not appear the issue became the topic of a writ petition as I discussed in a prior post.
This ruling is interesting to me in that it highlights an apparent disagreement between the two Discovery Commissioners. The decision about whether to produce video of an event may hinge upon a judicial assignment. It is an interesting conundrum.