Pavlak v. Dyer
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Pike County
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
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Upjohn Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Commonwealth v. NeillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1949
- Birth Center v. St. Paul Companies, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Karn v. RandDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 1996
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian CharitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
- Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hosp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010