Legal Opinion

Pavlak v. Dyer

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Pike County

Decided January 16, 2003No. 1099-2001 CivilPublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THOMSON, S.J.,

The above-captioned matter is decided simultaneously with the companion case of Robert Rohena v. Michael Dyer, no. 1100—2001 Civil.

INTRODUCTION

The current motion involves a discovery dispute that centers upon the conflict between the protection afforded by the attorney work-product doctrine and the required disclosure of the grounds for an expert witness opinion. For the reasons below, plaintiff’s attorney is ordered to provide defendant’s counsel with a redacted copy of all written correspondence between plaintiffs attorney and plaintiffs expert witness. Specifically,…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Commonwealth v. NeillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
  4. Birth Center v. St. Paul Companies, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  5. Karn v. RandDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1996

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian CharitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hosp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API