State Ex Rel. Feltz v. Bob Sight Ford, Inc., 341 S.W.3d 863

Feltz, a Missouri workers’ compensation claimant, alleged injury on February 25, 2008 at BSF.
Feltz notified BSF of his intent to depose BSF adjuster Laura Bauer and to subpoena any surveillance videotapes of Feltz.
BSF moved to quash the deposition and subpoena arguing surveillance tapes are not “statements” under §287.215.
ALJ Emily Fowler sustained the motion to quash, ruling videotapes aren’t discoverable as statements.
Feltz petitioned for mandamus to compel production of the surveillance videotape; the circuit court granted mandamus seeking Rule 56.01(b)(3) production.
BSF appeals, arguing §287.215 controls and surveillance tapes are not discoverable under general discovery rules.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §287.215 governs surveillance tapes over general discovery rules.	Feltz argued §287.215's definition of 'statement' includes surveillance tapes.	BSF contends §287.215 excludes videotapes from 'statement' and overrides general discovery.	Point I denied; §287.215 does not apply to Rule 56.01 discovery here.
Whether surveillance videotapes are discoverable under Rule 56.01(b)(3) as a 'statement' without showing substantial need.	Feltz relies on Rule 56.01(b)(3) to obtain tapes as a preexisting 'statement'.	BSF argues work product or statutory limits apply; substantial need not required.	Point II denied; tapes are discoverable as a 'statement' under Rule 56.01(b)(3).

State ex rel. McConaha v. Allen, 979 S.W.2d 188 (Mo. banc 1998) (established discovery of surveillance tapes via Rule 56.01(b)(3))
Fisher v. Waste Mgmt. of Mo., 58 S.W.3d 523 (Mo. banc 2001) (defined §287.215 scope and purpose re surveillance tapes)
State ex rel. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Koehr, 853 S.W.2d 925 (Mo. banc 1993) (surveillance tapes are 'statements' under Rule 56.01(b)(3))
Habjan v. Earnest, 2 S.W.3d 875 (Mo.App. 1999) (statutory interpretation guiding construction of discovery provisions)