Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

Communications between counsel and trial expert are not discoverable and are shielded from disclosure by the work-product privilege.

January 1, 2012
Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital, 2011 Pa. Super. 251, Filed Nov. 23, 2011

This matter involves the discoverability of communications between counsel and a trial expert regarding the manner in which the expert should frame his or her opinions or report. In September 2010, the Superior Court issued a precedential decision holding that such communications are discoverable and are not protected by the attorney work product doctrine. The Superior Court later withdrew that controversial decision and granted en banc reargument, and the case remained in limbo for the past year.

Happily, in a new decision issued on November 23, 2011, the Superior Court reversed its prior ruling and held that communications between counsel and a trial expert: (1) are NOT discoverable under Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5; and (2) ARE shielded from disclosure by the work-product privilege contained in Pa.R.C.P. 4003.3.

First, the court explained that, because Rule 4003.5(a)(1) permits the discovery of only the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert will testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion, "a discovery request for the content of any correspondence between an opposing party’s attorney and the expert witness retained by that party falls outside the express language of [the Rule]." To obtain discovery beyond the scope of the Rule, a party must satisfy the "cause shown" standard, which, under these facts, requires a demonstration that the correspondence between counsel and the expert is somehow independently relevant to the case (as, for instance, where a party asserts an "advice of counsel" defense).

Second, the court held that counsel's "mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, memoranda, notes, summaries, legal research or legal theories" contained within communications between counsel and a trial expert are protected from disclosure by the work product privilege unless, again, the party seeking disclosure can demonstrate that the work product is "directly relevant to the action." In other words, the mental impressions are discoverable only where the impressions themselves, rather than the legal merits they relate to, are directly relevant to the action (think again of the "advice of counsel" defense). Barring such rare circumstances, the impressions are not discoverable.

Although this new decision is very welcome, it remains possible that the Supreme Court will grant an appeal and rule differently, and it is also possible that the new decision will be interpreted narrowly.

Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2012

Affiliated Attorney

John J. Hare
Chair, Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice
(215) 575-2609
jjhare@mdwcg.com

Practice Areas

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."