In Sowell v. Target Corp., No. 14-cv-93 (N.D. Fla. May 28, 2014), the district court held that a video of plaintiff’s slip and fall was not protected by the work product doctrine, and ordered the video produced prior to the plaintiff’s deposition.   Defendant routinely operated video surveillance cameras in its store, and those videos were typically erased in the ordinary course of business.  Here, defendant’s claims department directed defendant to preserve the video after learning of the slip and fall.  Plaintiff sought production of the video and defendant objected on two grounds: (1) the act of preserving the video after learning of the slip and fall transformed the video into protected work product; and (2) in the alternative, defendant should not be required to produce the video until plaintiff gave her deposition so that plaintiff could not tailor her testimony based on the video.  The court rejected both arguments.  First, a document or thing is subject to the work product protection only when the proponent of the privilege demonstrates that at the time the document or thing was prepared the entity anticipated litigation.  Here, the video was created in the ordinary course of business.  The act of preserving the video does not transform the video into protected work product.  “Indeed, if that was the law literally every piece of electronically stored information (“ESI”) preserved by a defendant as part of a defendant’s duty of preservation would be off limits in discovery[.]”  Second, the court ordered immediate production because defendant did not point to any basis for delaying disclosure other than unsupported speculation that the plaintiff’s testimony may be altered in some way to reflect the events on the surveillance tape.