Must surveillance videos be disclosed in Utah discovery? Roundy v. Staley Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a critical discovery issue in Roundy v. Staley, establishing clear requirements for disclosure of surveillance evidence in personal injury litigation.

Background and Facts

Plaintiff Laina Roundy sustained injuries in an automobile accident with defendant Travis Staley. During litigation, Roundy made two discovery requests seeking information about witnesses and evidence Staley planned to use at trial. Staley failed to disclose that he had hired Ron Gunderson to conduct surveillance of Roundy or that a surveillance video existed. At trial, Staley’s expert witness Dr. Gerald Morass testified that after viewing the undisclosed surveillance video, he doubted Roundy’s truthfulness about her injury limitations. The video showed Roundy engaging in activities she testified she could not perform. The jury ultimately found Roundy 60% negligent, denying her damages.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed whether Utah’s discovery rules required disclosure of surveillance videos and related witnesses, and whether the defendant’s characterization of such evidence as “rebuttal evidence” or “attorney work product” excused nondisclosure.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that surveillance videos must be disclosed in response to discovery requests. Citing the purpose of Utah’s discovery rules—to eliminate surprise and promote fair trials—the court rejected arguments that surveillance evidence constitutes protected rebuttal evidence or work product when prepared for trial use. The court emphasized that evidence prepared in anticipation of introduction at trial is clearly discoverable under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). The error was deemed harmful because the case hinged on credibility, and the undisclosed evidence directly undermined the plaintiff’s credibility on a crucial liability issue.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Utah practitioners cannot circumvent discovery obligations by labeling impeachment evidence as “rebuttal.” Even evidence intended to contradict expected testimony must be disclosed when specifically discoverable under broad discovery requests. The ruling protects the integrity of Utah’s discovery system while ensuring parties have adequate opportunity to prepare for and respond to all evidence that will be presented at trial.