Plaintiff's Motion and Brief in Support of Motion to Compel Production of Surveillance Evidence or, in the Alternative, to Strike Surveillance Evidence from Being Used at Trial

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

OF SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO STRIKE SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE FROM BEING USED AT TRIAL

STATE OF _____________________

IN THE _______________ COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF _____________

______________________________

______________________________

Plaintiff

v.

JOHN DOE and

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants

___________________________________________________/

___________________________________________________/

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL SURVEILLANCE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,

STRIKE ANY SURVEILLANCE FROM BEING USED AT TRIAL

NOW COMES Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, and for her Motion to Compel Surveillance, hereby states as follows:

On or about [date], in response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories asking for surveillance, Defendant admitted that it has been conducted, but refused to produce it.

Surveillance is not protected by the attorney-client privilege or any other privilege.

If Defendant wishes to use, during this litigation, any surveillance, it must produce it. If it does not do so, Defendant should be barred from using any surveillance during this litigation.

Plaintiff seeks an award for costs and expenses for so wrongfully having to bring this motion. MCR 2.313(5).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an order compelling Defendant to produce any surveillance taken in this matter within seven (7) days of this motion or, in the alternative, strike any surveillance that has been conducted by Defendant from being used at trial and award costs and attorney fees so wrongfully sustained in having to bring this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

Attorneys for Plaintiff

_________________________________________

Dated:

STATE OF _____________________

IN THE _______________ COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF _____________

______________________________

______________________________

Plaintiffs

v.

JOHN DOE and

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants

___________________________________________________/

___________________________________________________/

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL SURVEILLANCE

OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STRIKE ANY SURVEILLANCE

FROM BEING USED AT TRIAL

Law and Legal Argument

Whether a document is protected by the work-product doctrine presents a question of law. Leibel v. General Motors Corp., 250 Mich. App. 229, 244; 646 N.W.2d 179 (2002). The premise of the work-product doctrine is that "any notes, working papers, memoranda or similar materials, prepared by an attorney in anticipation of litigation are protected from discovery." Messenger v. Ingham Co Prosecutor, 232 Mich. App. 633, 637...