Tyer v. Southwest Airlines, Co.

Filing 34

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 31 Motion to Compel Photographs. Please see Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle on 7/27/2015. (ms01)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 14-CV-62899-BLOOM/VALLE
PAULA TYER,
Plaintiff,
v.
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO.,
f/k/a AIRTRAN AIRWAYS, INC.,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PHOTOGRAPHS
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendant Southwest Airlines, Co.’s
(“Southwest”) Motion to Compel Photographs in Response to Request for Production
(ECF No. 31). United States District Judge Beth Bloom has referred all discovery matters to the
undersigned for disposition. See (ECF No. 20). The Court has reviewed the Motion, Plaintiff’s
Response (ECF No. 32), Southwest’s Reply (ECF No. 33), and the relevant law, and is otherwise
duly advised in the premises. Accordingly, because post-injury photographs of Plaintiff are
relevant to her claims in this case, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART.
BACKGROUND
This case involves an alleged injury suffered by Plaintiff, a disabled military veteran and
retired police officer, onboard a Southwest airplane in October 2013. See (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff
alleges that while boarding a Southwest flight accompanied by a service dog, Southwest’s
negligence caused her to fall, “severely injuring her back, shoulder, neck and wrist.” Id. ¶ 10.

As a result of the fall, Plaintiff claims that she underwent spinal surgery and now “can no longer
walk unassisted.” Id. ¶¶ 14, 16. Plaintiff thus seeks compensatory and punitive damages from
Southwest.
On July 7, 2015, Southwest moved to compel Plaintiff to produce “[a]ll photographs
taken of or by [Plaintiff] at all locations [Plaintiff] visited outside of South Florida since the date
of the Flight.” 1

(ECF No. 31 at 2) (emphasis added).

Southwest argues that post-injury

photographs are relevant to “Plaintiff’s physical condition and limitations since the Flight.”
Id. at 4. Although Plaintiff concedes that “some photos” may show her post-injury physical
limitations, Plaintiff argues that the request is overbroad and encompasses irrelevant and
potentially intimate material. (ECF No. 32 at 3-4). As a compromise, Plaintiff offers to produce
her medical records, together with any photos that Plaintiff herself believes show her physical
limitations. Id.
DISCUSSION
The primary goal of discovery is to ferret out evidence of the truth. See, e.g., Hickman v.
Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947) (explaining that litigation is a “search for truth”); Montes v. M
& M Mgmt. Co., No. 15-8O142-CIV, 2015 WL 4041311, at *3 (S.D. Fla. July 1, 2015) (“The
Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 26 explain that ‘[t]he purpose of discovery is to allow a
broad search for facts, the names of witnesses, or any other matters which may aid a party in the
preparation or presentation of his case.’” (quoting Adv. Com. Notes, 1946 Amendment, Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26.)). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), “[p]arties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense[,]” including
1

Specifically, Southwest moved to compel Plaintiff to respond to Request Number 45 in its First
Request for Production of Documents. (ECF No. 31 at 2). Plaintiff objected to the request as
“substantially overbroad, irrelevant, immaterial, and unrelated to any facts which are, or could be
related to this case.” (ECF No. 31-2 at 9).
2

photographs.

Relevant matter is broadly defined as information that “appears reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id.
Where a plaintiff alleges that a defendant has caused her personal injuries, she places her
physical condition at issue. In such situations, a request for post-injury photographs of the
plaintiff is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See, e.g.,
Vanderwall v. United Airlines, No. 14-CV-60256-BLOOM/VALLE (S.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2014)
(ECF No. 62 at 5-6); Davenport v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 3:11-CV-632-J-JBT,
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20944, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 21, 2012). For instance, in Vanderwall v.
United Airlines, a plaintiff sued United Airlines for an alleged slip-and-fall onboard a flight,
thereby placing her physical, emotional, and mental condition at issue. No. 14-CV-60256BLOOM/VALLE (S.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2014) (ECF No. 62 at 5-6). This Court granted United
Airlines’ motion to compel the plaintiff to produce all post-injury photographs of herself, finding
that those photographs were relevant to her “physical, emotional, or mental state.” Id. Similarly,
in Davenport v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the plaintiff sued for
personal injuries, thereby placing her physical condition at issue. The court thus granted the
defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff to produce “any photographs depicting her, taken
since the date of the subject accident, and posted to a [social networking site], regardless of who
posted them.” 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20944 at *2.
This case is no different. Plaintiff alleges that Southwest’s negligence caused her to
suffer physical injuries so severe that she can now no longer walk unassisted. Plaintiff has thus
placed her post-injury physical condition at issue.

Therefore, just like in Davenport and

Vanderwall, post-injury photographs of Plaintiff are relevant to her physical condition since the

3

accident. At the same time, however, photos that do not depict Plaintiff are not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Southwest’s Motion to
Compel Photographs in Response to Request for Production is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART as follows:
(1)

Southwest’s motion to compel is GRANTED insofar as Southwest requests

photos “taken of” Plaintiff at all locations outside of South Florida since the date of the accident
(October 16, 2013). Plaintiff shall produce all responsive photographs by August 7, 2015.
However, to the extent any responsive photo depicts any intimate or other highly sensitive
matter, Plaintiff may withhold those photos, provided that Plaintiff produces a log listing those
photos and detailing the specific reason why the photos are being withheld.
(2)

Southwest’s motion is DENIED insofar as Southwest requests photos “taken by”

Plaintiff at all locations outside of South Florida since the date of the accident.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on July 27, 2015.

________________________________________
ALICIA O. VALLE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to:
United States District Judge Beth Bloom
All Counsel of Record

4