Discovery of Consulting Psychiatric and Psychological Experts

Abstract

To enjoy the excitement and financial rewards of participating in complex legal strategies, while avoiding the exposure of their own work to cross-examination, many psychiatrists and psychologists choose to serve as consultants, operating behind the scenes at what seems like a safe distance from the witness stand. In certain situations, however, rules provide for the discovery of consultants for “good cause” and under “exceptional circumstances.” This article analyzes such situations via a review of cases grouped into three categories: (1) discovery of “real” consulting experts; (2) discovery of “sheltered” experts; and (3) discovery in the event of “buyer's remorse.” Judicial reassignment of consulting and testifying roles threatens the adversary system by dissuading participation from experts leery of unplanned role assignments. Counsel is best advised to anticipate such problems and to guide consultants accordingly.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adkins v. Morton, 494 A.2d 652 (D.C. App. 1985).

Agron v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 176 F.R.D. 445 (S. D.N.Y. 1997).

Champagne

Shuman

D. W.

Whitaker

(1991). An empirical examination of the use of expert witnesses in American courts. Jurimetrics, 31, 375–392

Dixon v. Cappellini, 88 F.R.D. 1 (M.D. Pa. 1980).

Eads

(1989). Adjudication by ambush: Federal prosecutors' use of nonscientific experts in a system of limited criminal discovery. North Carolina Law Review, 67, 577–626

Eliasen v. Taylor, 111 F.R.D. 396 (N.D. 111. 1986

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(B).

Fed. R. Civ. p. 35

Fed. R. Evid. 401

10.

Fed. R. Evid. 402

11.

Fed. R. Evid. 403

12.

Fed. R. Evid 611(a).

13.

Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947).

14.

In re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litig., 343 F.3d 658 (3rd Cir. 2003).

15.

In re Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc., 238 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

16.

Lehan v. Ambassador Programs, Inc., 190 F.R.D. 670 (E.D.Wash. 2000).

17.

MacDonald Sprague Roofing Co. v. USM Weather-Shield Sys. Co., 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12839, 38 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 518 (D. Mass. 1983).

18.

Moore U.S.A. Inc. v. Standard Register Co., 206 F.R.D. 72 (D.C.N.Y. 2001).

19.

Peterson v. Willie, 81 F.3d 1033 (11th Cir. 1996).

20.

Rodrigues v. Hrinda, 56 F.R.D. 11 (W.D. Pa. 1972).

21.

Spearman Indus, v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 128 F. Supp. 2d 1148 (N.D. 111. 2001).

22.

Texas Code. Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 37.071 (Vernon 2007).

23.

Thompson v. Haskell Co., 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13184 (M.D. Fla.)

24.

Thornburg

(1991). Rethinking work product. Virginia Law Review, 77, 1515–1583

25.

Trigon Ins. Co. v. U.S., 204 F.R.D. 277 (E.D. Va. 2001).

26.

Upjohn v. U.S., 449 U.S. 383 (1981).

27.

U.S. v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2004).

28.

U.S. v. Meyer, 398 F.2d 66, 76 (9th Cir. 1968).

29.

Wright

C. A.

Miller

A. R.

Marcus

R. L.

(2007). Federal practice and procedure, civil (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West