In Florida, if you want to use surveillance footage at trial, you have to provide a copy to the plaintiff beforehand.  After you provide the footage, the plaintiff might seek to compel the private investigator’s report as well, but you should fight hard against this, because even if you use the footage, the report is still protected work product.  In Alamo Rent-A-Car v. Loomis, 432 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 4^th DCA 1983), a defendant’s private investigator obtained surveillance footage of the plaintiff and prepared a report.  The defendant produced the footage, but objected to producing the report based on work product.  The trial court overruled the objection and ordered the report produced. 

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed based on the work product doctrine, ruling that immunity applies in light of the defendant not intending to use the report at trial:

In the instant case, the defendant has already furnished the plaintiff with the actual surveillance movies in question, along with the name and address of the investigator.  The defendant points out that the investigator is subject to deposition. Further, defendant does not intend to use the surveillance report (the written document) in evidence.  This document is apparently solely for the aid of counsel in trying the case.  As the Supreme Court pointed out in Dodson, such materials are work product and can only be discovered upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.

Alamo Rent-A-Car, 432 So. 2d at 747.  (emphasis added)  See also Castenholz v. Bergmann, 696 So. 2d 954, 954 (Fla. 4^th DCA 1997) (“The Bergmanns, the plaintiffs below, cross-appeal the admission of video surveillance evidence, as well as the court’s ruling disallowing discovery of the video photographer’s notes and report.  We affirm the issue on cross-appeal without further comment, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s rulings.”).    

The Fourth District in Alamo is the only Florida appellate court to address this issue.  Because no other appellate districts have addressed it, the opinion is binding on both the Fourth District and all other appellate districts in Florida.  E.g. Dawkins, Inc. v. Huff, 836 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 5^th DCA 2003).