The Eastern District of Louisiana recently issued another opinion interpreting Chiasson v. Zapata Gulf Marine Corp., the benchmark Fifth Circuit case that guides the discoverability of surveillance as substantive versus impeachment evidence. Plaintiff alleged that, while employed as a Jones Act seaman, he experienced an accident that resulted in injury to his back and other parts of his body. In filing against his employer for Jones Act benefits and other defendants for negligence under general maritime law, Plaintiff filed an expedited motion to compel production of surveillance obtained by his Jones Act employer prior to his deposition. Employer objected to the production of surveillance arguing that surveillance was non-discoverable impeachment evidence at the present stage of litigation. The District Court agreed that, under Chiasson, Plaintiff was entitled to production of surveillance tapes as substantive evidence, but that Chiasson did not address the timing of disclosure. The court agreed with Employer that the proper procedure would be to produce the surveillance evidence subsequent to Plaintiff’s deposition in order to preserve the substantive and impeachment value of the surveillance evidence.
Krekorian v. FMC Technologies, Inc.