This letter was likewise forwarded to the court and Mr. Langston. Upchurch refused, and plaintiffs moved to compel the production of this information. No further production is warranted as the court finds the documents protected by the work-product privilege. The instant Rule 72 objection followed. Having carefully considered the matter, the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge's ruling is, in part, clearly erroneous and contrary to law.
Plaintiffs advance the opposite position.
In this instance, the court chooses to take a more moderate position than either of these. Otherwise, under the facts of this case, plaintiffs will not be able to cross-examine Dr. Ling effectively or to impeach his credibility. In reaching this decision, the court wants to make clear that this holding is peculiar to the facts at hand and cannot in any way be taken as an open invitation to others to begin requesting production of documents and communications which they know to be protected by the attorney work product privilege. An appropriate order shall issue.