Attorney-Expert Witness Correspondence Gets Another Look

In September, I wrote about a Pennsylvania Superior Court decision holding that correspondence between an attorney and an expert witness who the attorney intends to call at trial is discoverable. Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity, 2010 PA Super 170 (Sep. 16, 2010). That case was huge news for all PA litigators. Well, kiss that decision goodbye... for now.

Shortly before Thanksgiving, the Superior Court entered an Order Granting Application for Reconsideration/Reargument ordering:

THAT the application for en banc reargument filed September 27, 2010 is GRANTED;

THAT the decision of this Court filed September 16, 2010, is hereby withdrawn;

THAT the case be listed before the next available en banc panel; and

THAT the parties shall file twenty two (22) additional copies of all briefs and twelve (12) reproduced records in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 2140. Each party shall, within the time period specified, either refile the brief previously filed together with a supplemental brief if desired, or prepare and file a substituted brief.

This is big news in Pennsylvania, as we eagerly await the outcome.

UPDATE: My McQuaide Blasko colleague, Jon Stepanian, also covered this topic, on Defense of Medicine.

Posted by Philip Miles, an employment lawyer with McQuaide Blasko in State College, Pennsylvania.