In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs brought a motion to exclude surveillance evidence obtained by the defendant.
The defendant had disclosed a surveillance video from October 2012 well in advance of trial but failed to disclose additional surveillance from 2013 and 2014 until shortly before trial, contrary to an undertaking given at discovery.
The court held that although the defendant breached its disclosure obligations, the October 2012 surveillance could still be admitted as substantive evidence and for impeachment because it had been disclosed long before trial and both parties’ experts had reviewed it.
The later surveillance footage could not be relied upon by the defendant but remained available for the plaintiffs’ use.
Any potential prejudice could be addressed through supplemental expert reports or an adjournment.
