Hankerson, the Fourth District creates a bright line rule against production of
post-accident surveillance videos prior to a plaintiff's deposition.
The defendant in the case sought certiorari review of an order permitting
the plaintiff to view a post-accident surveillance video before a deposition.
"Because the benefit of the surveillance video may be irreparably
lost if the plaintiff is permitted to view the video before Hankerson
has an opportunity to question her, irreparable harm for certiorari jurisdiction
has been shown." The Fourth District found that the trial court's
order departed from the essential requirements of the law, noting that under
Dodson v. Persell, "fairness requires that a defendant be permitted to depose the plaintiff
before turning over a surveillance video." The Fourth District agreed
with the Third District's application of
Dodson, which has had the effect of creating a bright line rule. Finding that
a bright line rule would impose uniformity and avoid disparate rulings,
the Fourth District determined that a trial court abuses its discretion
where it permits a plaintiff to view a post-accident surveillance video
before allowing a defendant to depose the plaintiff.