Source: https://www.resolvingdiscoverydisputes.com/expert-witness/attorneys-relationship-expert-work-product-doctrine/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 01:05:49+00:00

Document:
Have you ever wondered how the work product doctrine works when you hire a consultant who may or may not become your expert. Trial Attorney Lee Previant, from Los Angeles, wrote this great article titled “Attorney Work Product Doctrine And Experts“ for Advocate Magazine that explains how it all works. Enjoy.
As any litigator is undoubtedly aware, expert witnesses are necessary whether to offer evidence required to meet your burden of proof or to offer evidence to combat attacks on causation. Likewise, communications with your expert witnesses are necessary. This includes communications to 1) retain the expert witness, 2) communications providing them with case specific materials so they may formulate their opinions, and 3) communications providing scientific, technical, professional texts, treatises, journals, or similar publications to assist the expert in forming their opinion. In addition, an attorney may communicate with an expert for the sole purpose of obtaining advisory opinions.
Once qualified, an expert may offer an opinion “[r]elated to a subject that is sufficiently beyond common experience that the opinion of an expert would assist the trier of fact[.]” (Evid. Code § 801(a).) Such an opinion can be based on matters “perceived by or personally known to the witness or made known to him at or before the hearing, whether or not admissible, that is of a type that reasonably may be relied upon by an expert in forming an opinion upon the subject to which his testimony relates, unless an expert is precluded by law from using such matter as a basis for his opinion.” (Evid. Code § 801(b).) The type of material an expert may rely upon is quite broad and encompasses inadmissible evidence, such as hearsay. Simply put, experts wield incredible power in litigation and the attorney’s communications with them should be deliberate and strategic.
An expert may be cross-examined on the “matter upon which his or her opinion is based and the reasons for his or her opinion.” (Evid. Code § 721(a).) This includes communications with the attorney rendering those communications discoverable. Such communications naturally would include written reports of an advisory nature.
The attorney work product doctrine, codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 2018.030, sets the boundaries of what is discoverable with respect to Section 2034.210. The Code states that “[a] writing that reflects an attorneys’ impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal research or theories is not discoverable under any circumstances.” (Code Civ. Pro. § 2018.030(a).) In addition, attorney work product beyond that described in subdivision (a), “is not discoverable unless the court determines that denial of discovery will unfairly prejudice the party seeking discovery in preparing that party’s claim or defense or will result in an injustice.” (Code Civ. Pro. § 2018.030(b).) This qualified work product protection covers material that is derivative or interpretative in nature such as findings, opinions, and consulting expert reports. (Fellows v. Superior Court (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 55, 68.) One purpose of the work product doctrine is to ensure attorneys have the privacy necessary to prepare cases “thoroughly and to investigate not only the favorable but the unfavorable aspects” of their cases. (Code Civ. Pro. § 2018.020(a).) Another purpose is to “prevent attorneys from taking undue advantage of their adversary’s industry and efforts. (Code Civ. Pro § 2018.020(b).) The limitation on expert discovery imposed by attorney work product doctrine may be crucial to developing one’s case. It may be necessary to consult with an expert to determine how craft pleadings, how to cross-examine opposing experts, and other strategic considerations.
What’s clear from this 3-part test is that a designated expert may still provide an advisory report that is not discoverable and entirely separate from a discoverable report generated for trial. As set forth below, however, counsel should proceed with such advisory reports with caution. The National Steel Court’s decision to allow discovery of the expert’s advisory report is based in part on the opinion set forth in Petterson v. Superior Court (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 267.
In Petterson, an executor was informed by claimant A’s attorney that a handwriting expert had determined a holographic will was a forgery. (Id. at 270.) The executor’s attorney sought to depose the expert but claimant B’s attorney objected because claimant B had hired the expert as a consultant and did not intend to call the expert as a witness at trial. (Id. at 271.) The court held that the attorney work product doctrine had been waived due to claimant A informing the executor’s attorney. (Id. at 272-273.) In doing so, the Court noted that when an expert is retained solely for advising an attorney those expert’s observations and opinions are normally not discoverable “unless there is some other compelling reason.” (Id. at 272; see also Williamson v. Superior Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 829, 834-835.) Here, it was clear to the Court that claimant B had hired the expert as an advisor for the sole purpose of preventing the expert’s testimony. The Court was concerned with “setting a precedent which eventually could lead to subtle but deliberate attempts to suppress relevant evidence.” (Petterson v. Superior Court, supra, 39 Cal.App.3d at p. 273.) Thus, counsel must not automatically assume an expert’s advisory opinions are precluded from discovery and in fact they maybe subject to part three of the National Steel test. Under Petterson, this is true even though the expert may not be a prospective witness.
The takeaway from these cases is that the attorney work product doctrine may be a powerful shield in protecting an attorney’s development of strategies, theories, and understanding of a case. However, the Court will not entertain the attempted use of attorney work product as a sword to exclude experts and expert testimony. A clear understanding of what is and is not discoverable is fundamental in successfully litigating your case.
Summary The work product doctrine can be an effective shield for your experts’ consulting opinions in certain circumstances but one must be careful to not use it as a sword.
This article originally appeared in the Volume 45, Number 10, October 2017 issue of theAdvocate. Copyright © 2017 Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
COITO v. SUPERIOR COURT--Is It Heading Back to the Supreme Court?

References: § 801
 § 801
 § 721
 § 2018
 § 2018
 v. 
 § 2018
 § 2018
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.