ThemeVision Trial Consultant, Dr. Stolle, Quoted by the Third Circuit in In Re Cendant

On September 16, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided In Re: Cendant Corporation Securities Litigation, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 19176. At issue in the case was whether the work product of a non-testifying trial consultant was privileged. The trial consultant whose work product was at issue was Dr. Phillip C. McGraw – “Dr. Phil.” In concluding that “[l]itigation consutants retained to aid in witness preparation may qualify as non-attorneys who are protected by the work product doctrine,” the Third Circuit cited Dennis P. Stolle, et al., The Perceived Fairness of the Psychologist Trial Consultant, 20 Law & Psychol. Rev. 139 (1996), and quoted Stolle’s conclusion in that article that, “Modern trial consulting methods typically consist of many techniques such as witness preparation, and mock trials, that clearly could not be framed as falling outside of the work product rule.”