The plaintiff sued for damages arising from altercations with security guards.
Shortly before the jury trial commenced, the defendants conducted surveillance on the plaintiff and disclosed the video and report to the plaintiff's counsel.
During the trial, the defendants sought to use the surveillance as substantive evidence or for impeachment.
The plaintiff argued the evidence should be excluded due to late disclosure.
The court held that the defendants required leave to introduce the evidence under Rule 48.04, as the matter had been set down for trial.
The court declined to exclude the evidence outright, finding it relevant and material, but granted the plaintiff a 1.5-day adjournment to review the footage and prepare.
