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.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]