Court Opinion

ID: 9573342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:52:56.755544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:40:38.877984
License: Public Domain

Fletcher, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority opinion ignores the purpose of the Georgia Civil Practice Act, which is to permit the parties equal access to relevant materials to aid in the “just, speedy, and inexpensive” resolution of legal disputes, see OCGA § 9-11-1, and relies on a strained interpretation of the discovery rules rejected in the latest revision to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, by requiring trial courts to review documents in discovery disputes to determine if an attorney’s work product is involved, the court adds to the cost and delay of litigation. Because I believe the rule governing an attorney’s work product does not prevent disclosure of correspondence between an attorney and expert witness under the state’s Civil Practice Act, I dissent to Division 2.
1. I agree that this appeal involves the relationship between the *379rule protecting an attorney’s work product and the rule permitting discovery of the facts and opinions of expert witnesses. OCGA § 9-11-26 (b) (3) provides, in relevant part:
(3) Trial Preparation; materials. Subject to paragraph (4) of this subsection, a party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under paragraph (1) of this subsection and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party’s representative (including his attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of his case and that he is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation.
Subsection (b) (4) establishes the rule for discovering information held by experts employed in anticipation of litigation or for trial. A party may require any other party to identify through interrogatories
each person whom the other party expects to call as an expert witness at trial, to state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and to state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.
OCGA § 9-11-26 (4) (A) (i). Another party may take the expert’s deposition and file a request for the production of documents “the same as any other witness,” but for a reasonable fee. OCGA § 9-11-26 (4) (A) (ii).
Neither the language nor the legislative history of the rules supports the majority’s interpretation of the statute. The majority arbitrarily limits the first clause of OCGA § 9-11-26 (b) (3), which makes paragraph (3) “[s]ubject to paragraph (4) of this subsection,” to the first sentence of subsection (b) (3). It is not clear why the majority concluded that the initial clause covers the first sentence and not the second. One court has argued persuasively that the introductory clause applies to both the first and second sentences of Federal Rule 26 (b) (3). See Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc., 139 F.R.D. 384, 387-388 (N.D. Cal. 1991).
Moreover, by protecting opinion work product from disclosure, *380the majority ignores our state’s clear policy of permitting full discovery from expert witnesses. See generally D. Langham, Agnor’s Civil Discovery § 7-3 (1991 rev. ed.). Nowhere is there state law authority that the work product “defense” can curtail or obscure this policy of full disclosure. The rule on discovery of experts requires an expert whose “facts [are] known and opinions [are] held . . . and acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or trial” to state the subject matter and substance of facts and opinion to which he will testify and a “summary of the grounds for each opinion.” Since the expert’s opinion will be based on the facts he has been given, as opposed to the events he has observed, it is necessary for the opposing party to know the facts the expert has assumed. See Candler Gen. Hosp. v. Joiner, 180 Ga. App. 455, 458 (349 SE2d 756) (1986). This disclosure helps reduce the potential for an attorney coaching the expert witness on the opinion desired.
The legislative history of OCGA § 9-11-26 also demonstrates this state’s policy of unfettered discovery from experts. Under the federal rule prior to the 1993 amendment, a party could not obtain more than interrogatory responses from an expert without court order. FRCP 26 (b) (4) (A) (ii) (“Upon motion, the court may order further discovery by other means”). In contrast, the Georgia rule specifically allows further discovery of expert witnesses “the same as any other witness” because the legislature did not want to limit the right to full discovery by deposition. OCGA § 9-11-26 (b) (4) (A) (ii); Ga. Code Ann. § 81A-126 editorial note (Harrison 1984).
2. The legislative history of the federal rules also supports discovery of the information on which an expert relies. The Georgia discovery rules are based on the 1970 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In adopting Federal Rule 26 (b) (4), the drafters chose to permit discovery of information obtained by a party from an expert expected to be called as a witness at trial. Meaningful discovery of the information held by an expert witness is required to enable effective cross-examination and rebuttal at trial. FRCP 26 (b) (4) advisory committee’s note, 1970 amendment. The drafters rejected as “ill-conceived” court decisions that sought to bring expert information within the work product doctrine. Id.
Relying on this legislative history, many federal courts have held that a party may discover an attorney’s work product that an expert uses to formulate his or her opinion. See, e.g., Boring v. Keller, 97 F.R.D. 404 (D. Colo. 1983). The documents are relevant because they may have influenced the expert’s opinion testimony. Occulto v. Adamar of New Jersey, 125 F.R.D. 611, 617 (D. N.J. 1989). Production fulfills the purpose of discovery by allowing a party to prepare for the cross-examination and possible impeachment of a critical witness of an adverse party. See William Penn Life Assur. Co. v. Brown *381Transfer &c. Co., 141 F.R.D. 142, 143 (W.D. Mo. 1990). Despite the majority opinion’s labeling of attorney work product as a “higher value,” there is no compelling rationale that permits counsel to deliver work product to an expert and then “withhold material from an adversary who seeks to exploit the fact of this assistance in cross-examining the witness.” Berkey Photo v. Eastman Kodak Co., 74 F.R.D. 613, 617 (S.D. N.Y. 1977).
Although the federal courts are split on the issue,3 the 1993 amendment to Federal Rule 26 supports the line of cases that favor disclosure of materials considered by expert witnesses in forming their opinions, even when an attorney prepares the material. The rule therefore rejects the reasoning in the circuit court opinion on which the majority opinion relies. See Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 738 F2d 587 (3rd Cir. 1984). Federal Rule 26 now requires a party to identify expert witnesses and provide a detailed written report of the expert testimony that may be offered at trial. The report must contain a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed, the basis and reasons for the opinions, and “the data or other information considered by the witness in forming the opinions.” FRCP 26 (a) (2) (B).
Given this obligation of disclosure, litigants should no longer be able to argue that materials furnished to their experts to be used in forming their opinions — whether or not ultimately relied upon by the expert — are privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure when such persons are testifying or being deposed.
Id., advisory committee’s note, 1993 amendment.
I would rely on the language and intent of both the state rules and the federal rules’ 1993 amendment and hold that OCGA § 9-11-26 (b) (4) permits discovery of documents that an attorney prepares and provides to an expert witness as part of the witness’s preparation for testimony. Requiring production of the material would aid in the fair resolution of legal disputes, which is the purpose of discovery. It would narrow the disputed facts and expert opinions to be resolved at trial and assist in the effective cross-examination and rebuttal of expert witnesses. In addition, its implementation would lessen the need for the trial court’s intervention in discovery disputes.
For these reasons, I would reverse Division 2 of the Court of Appeals’ decision. I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Hunt joins in this dissent.
*382Decided July 15, 1994.
Alston & Bird, Robert D. McCallum, Jr., James C. Grant, for appellants.
Alan Z. Eisenstein, for appellee.

 See Intermedics, 139 F.R.D. at 387, n. 3 (listing cases).