In this personal injury action, the plaintiff objected to the admissibility of defence surveillance video as substantive evidence during an ongoing civil jury trial.
The plaintiff argued that the video had low probative value, was potentially prejudicial, and that some portions were not disclosed in a timely manner under Rule 30.09.
The court dismissed the objection, finding the surveillance video prima facie relevant to the plaintiff's condition and abilities, and that its probative value was not outweighed by prejudicial effect.
The court granted leave for late disclosure under Rule 30.09, noting ample opportunity for review.
The ruling allowed the defendants to tender the video as substantive evidence, subject to specific qualifications regarding the exclusion of overly intrusive or misleading segments and directions on presentation to the jury.