Montero v. Corzo
In a rear-end auto negligence case tried on non-economic damages, the defense produced a 2019 surveillance video and an undisclosed investigator three business days before trial, having listed only 'any and all surveillance film or videotape' and 'any and all surveillance personnel' in its pretrial disclosures. The Third District held the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the video and the investigator's testimony without conducting the Binger analysis or making any findings on untimeliness or prejudice, and reversed for a new trial.
Key facts
- Plaintiff Montero sued defendant Corzo for damages from a rear-end motor vehicle collision, with the case tried on the issue of non-economic damages.
- Three business days before trial, the defense disclosed a 2019 surveillance video and an investigator for the first time, despite having listed only generic catch-all categories ('any and all surveillance film or videotape' and 'any and all surveillance personnel') in its pretrial disclosures.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a useful decision for plaintiffs' counsel confronting eve-of-trial surveillance video: it squarely holds that boilerplate 'any and all surveillance' listings are inadequate disclosure and that the Binger… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.