Discovery: Surveillance

Kemp v. Sedgwick Claims [5/6/98] 1998 MTWCC 35A Following respondent's objection to production of certain documents, hearing examiner conducted review of documents to determine what they were. With regard to surveillance reports, respondent was ordered to produce those portions which concern any matter to which the investigator may testify at trial.

Fitch v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. [12/30/97] 1997 MTWCC 70A-2 Claimant moved for a protective order based on allegations that respondent's counsel intimidated and frightened her friends, coworkers, and family through seeking information about her and through hiring private investigators to videotape her activities. Following a full-day hearing, and briefing by the parties, the Court concluded there was not a scintilla of evidence to support claimant's serious allegations. Evidence of questioning of one witness by respondent's counsel indicated his demeanor and questions were exemplary. The videotaping was conducted over a period of several weeks, but only in public settings, in which claimant had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Moreover, she can hardly claim emotional distress during the surveillance when she did not know about the surveillance as it occurred.
Mutchie v. Old Republic Ins. Co. [01/20/95] 1995 MTWCC 3 Pursuant to the Court’s ability to control the sequence of discovery, information regarding surveillance of claimant need not be produced until after respondent has had the opportunity to depose claimant. See, Yager v. Montana Schools Group Insurance, 1994 MTWCC 24.