On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
issued its opinion in Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of
Christian Charity, 91 A.3d 680 (Pa. 2014), and addressed the issue of the
scope of discovery and attorney work product under Pennsylvania's rules of
civil procedure, particularly the discovery of communications between attorneys
and testifying expert witnesses. The
court adopted a bright line rule that communications between attorneys and
testifying experts are protected from disclosure.
The case was a personal injury action in which the
plaintiff suffered serious injuries when a chair in which he was sitting in a
hospital cafeteria collapsed. In response to defendants' subpoena requests, the
treating physician withheld records that the physician contended were not
created for treatment purposes. When the defendants sought to compel
production, the plaintiffs designated the physician as a testifying expert and
claimed that all communications between the physician and counsel were
privileged. The trial court, after an in camera review, ordered the
communications produced.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Superior Court, where a
three judge panel first upheld the trial court's decision, concluding that the
defendants were entitled to discover whether the expert's conclusions were his
own or guided by counsel. But on the plaintiffs' petition, an en banc panel
of the Superior Court concluded that the communications at issue were not
subject to discovery and that the defendants had not met their burden of
showing "cause" as to why the records should be produced, as required
by Rule 4003.5(a)(2). And although the court noted that an in camera review
might be necessary to determine which aspects of the communications constituted
protected material, the court broadly ruled that the communications were
protected from disclosure as attorney work product under Rule 4003.3. Judge
Bowes of the Superior Court, in a dissenting and concurring opinion, parted ways
with the majority regarding a blanket protection for correspondence between
counsel and an expert witness.
The defendants requested that the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court review whether the Superior Court's interpretation of Rule 4003.3
improperly provided absolute protection to all communications between a party's
counsel and their trial expert. The
defendants' key issue with the Superior Court's blanket ruling was the issue
noted by the first panel of the Superior Court: being able to determine whether
an expert's opinions and conclusions were the expert's independent conclusions
or whether the opinions and conclusions had been guided by counsel.
After review of the applicable rules, their history, and
purpose, the court acknowledged that while some communications between counsel
and experts might solely contain the attorney's mental impressions and legal
theories, most would have substantial overlap and intermingling of work product
and facts that trigger the attorney's work product. The court further stated
that attempting to extricate the work product from the related facts would add
unnecessary delay and difficulty to the discovery process, and redaction
following in camera review would result in needless litigation, adding
expense to the parties and tying up the trial courts. The court found it
preferable to err on the side or protecting the attorney work product, given
the tools such as cross-examination at trial and interrogatories that opponents
could use to find out further information, where appropriate. Accordingly, the
court affirmed the Superior Court's bright-line rule and holding.
While this decision is, of course, jurisdiction-specific
and is based on the court's analysis of Pennsylvania's rules of procedure, it
will be interesting to see if more courts take - and more attorneys urge - a
similar bright-line approach to communications between attorneys and experts
and add a prong to the analysis regarding the cost, time, and effort related to
in camera review of communications parties believe are privileged and
protected.
No comments:
Post a Comment