Katrincic v. Moonstar Logistics, LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-08733
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Katrincic v. Moonstar Logistics, Judge Schofield granted delayed video disclosure and denied as moot protection for investigators’ reports.
The ruling affects Adam Katrincic and the defendants, including Moonstar Logistics, LLC, by setting the timing for producing the surveillance video and leaving the investigators’ reports protected request unresolved as moot for the time being.
What happened
In Katrincic v. Moonstar Logistics, LLC, Adam Katrincic sued Moonstar Logistics, LLC, and other defendants over a vehicle accident that allegedly caused him severe injuries. After the accident, defense investigators watched him and made a video and reports.
The defendants asked to delay producing the surveillance video until after Katrincic’s deposition so he could not adjust his testimony to match the video. They also sought to withhold the investigators’ reports as protected attorney work product. Katrincic did not oppose withholding the reports at that time, but reserved the right to request them later under certain circumstances.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the request to delay production of the video and ordered the defendants to provide it no later than seven days after the deposition. She denied as moot the request for protection concerning the investigators’ reports because Katrincic said he was not seeking them at that time.
The detailed version
- Katrincic v. Moonstar Logistics, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-08733
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 25, 2020
Background
Adam Katrincic brought this action against a truck driver and the company to which the truck was registered, alleging that they caused a vehicle accident that left him severely injured. After the accident, the defendants’ investigators conducted surveillance of Katrincic and created a video and written reports.
The Requests
The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) for a protective order, which is a court order limiting or controlling discovery. They asked to delay producing the surveillance video until after Katrincic’s deposition, arguing that he might tailor his testimony to the video. They also asked the court to protect the investigators’ reports from production based on claimed attorney work-product protection. Alternatively, they asked the court to review the video privately to decide whether protection was warranted.
Katrincic argued that the defendants had not shown the required good cause for delaying the video. As to the reports, he stated that he did not oppose withholding them based on the defendants’ representation that they were prepared after litigation began at counsel’s direction. He reserved the right to seek the reports if the defendants later called their investigators as witnesses to provide more than foundational testimony.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that Rule 26(b)(1) generally allows discovery of relevant, nonprivileged matters. It also explained that Rule 26(c) permits a court to limit discovery for good cause and that trial courts have broad discretion over the timing of pretrial discovery.
The court concluded that delaying production of the surveillance video until after Katrincic’s deposition appropriately balanced the parties’ interests. The delay preserved the video’s usefulness for challenging testimony while still giving Katrincic the video well before trial.
Disposition
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the defendants’ motion for a protective order delaying production of the post-accident surveillance video until after Katrincic’s deposition. The defendants were ordered to produce the video no later than seven days after the deposition. The court denied as moot the defendants’ motion for a protective order concerning the investigators’ reports because Katrincic stated that he was not seeking those reports at that time. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Nos. 16 and 24.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.