As this case illustrates, there is some tension between the goals of protecting attorney work product and allowing fair access to information provided to a testifying expert. An expert hired to assist in a civil case must be informed of the nature of the case and any relevant factual matters. If an attorney provides the expert with all such factual materials and nothing more, the expert must sift through them and decide which items or parts of items are relevant. While this would arguably avoid transmission of attorney work product to the expert, it would be time-consuming and inefficient. It is more helpful for the attorney, who is already familiar with the case and the legal issues involved, to document for the expert any relevant facts and issues. Doing so “facilitates prompt formation of an expert’s opinion [and] carries the benefit of efficiency, [but] it may also lead to discovery of such information by the opponent.” Duke T. Oishi, A Piece of Mind for Peace of Mind: Federal Discoverability of Opinion Work Product Provided to Expert Witnesses and its Implications in Hawaiʻi, 24 U. Haw. L. Rev. 859, 859-60 (2002).
Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hosp. of the Sisters of Christian Charity, 625 Pa. 301, 324, 91 A.3d 680, 693-94 (2014)