331 A.3d 1003
R.I.2025Background
- Rajmonda Mile attended her daughter's wedding at Kirkbrae Country Club, where she allegedly slipped and fell on September 9, 2018.
- Mile filed a lawsuit against Kirkbrae, later requesting any photos or surveillance video of the incident via interrogatories during discovery.
- Kirkbrae admitted possessing a surveillance video of the incident, captured on its security cameras, but objected to producing it before Mile's deposition, citing the work-product doctrine as established in Cabral v. Arruda.
- Mile moved to compel immediate production, arguing the video was created in the ordinary course of business—not in anticipation of litigation—and thus not protected by work-product privilege.
- The Superior Court denied Mile's motion to compel production of the video prior to her deposition; Mile then sought review by the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether surveillance video is protected as work product | Video was recorded contemporaneously in normal business operations, not for litigation; not protected work product | Video should be withheld until deposition under Cabral principles; disclosure only after deposition | Video is not work product; must be produced to plaintiff |
| Whether Cabral v. Arruda applies to contemporaneous surveillance | Cabral applies only to attorney-directed surveillance, not recordings made in ordinary course | Cabral principles justify post-deposition disclosure even for ordinary surveillance | Cabral applies only if privilege attaches; not so here |
| Burden of proof for invoking work-product privilege | Kirkbrae failed to meet burden to show video created in anticipation of litigation | Asserted privilege without demonstrating anticipation of litigation | Kirkbrae failed to establish privilege; no protection granted |
| Scope of court’s inherent authority over discovery | Issue not preserved for appeal; only work-product argued below | Court has authority to regulate timing of discovery | Argument waived; court focused solely on privilege |
Key Cases Cited
- Cabral v. Arruda, 556 A.2d 47 (R.I. 1989) (Established that surveillance photos initiated by attorneys post-incident are work product discoverable after deposition)
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (U.S. 1947) (Defined the modern contours and rationale of work-product doctrine)
- Pastore v. Samson, 900 A.2d 1067 (R.I. 2006) (Noted that party asserting privilege bears burden of demonstrating its applicability)