Part Two of a Two-Part Series
The first part of this article discussed the split in the circuit courts on the issue of whether a party must produce all communications and materials that were supplied by the party’s attorney to a testifying expert, even if these communications (oral or written) would otherwise be protected as attorney work product. The majority of federal courts have adopted a “bright-line rule” that all information shared with a testifying expert must be produced, even if it includes “core” attorney work product, namely the attorney’s mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories. A minority, however, has declined to follow this bright-line rule and instead has held that providing attorney work product materials to a testifying expert does not waive the attorney work product protection. The conclusion of this series will discuss the minority view and compare the two views.
