concluded that the documents were protected by the privilege. Id. In reaching that conclusion, he specifically rejected the notion that “the work-product privilege would yield whenever a plaintiff was smart enough to merely allege a ‘cover-up’ ” Id. at 350. Unlike that case, the Court here has not only already determined that such misconduct has taken place by DOC officials, but also ordered discovery to take place on the issue and identified specific DOC officials that may have participated in the destruction or removal of documents that should have been provided to Judicial Watch. It is, as noted above, in this context that the Court finds that Judge Facciola’s decision was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Cf. Baker v. General Motors Corp., 209 F.3d 1051, 1054 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). 2. Document # 5 To the extent the Court finds
holding that fedrcivp 26b3 does not require absolute protection for opinion work product and noting that these materials may be discovered and admitted when mental impressions are at issue in the case and the need for the materials is compelling recognizing that even though opinion work product enjoys almost absolute immunity it can be discovered in very rare and extraordinary circumstances such as when the material demonstrates that an attorney engaged in illegal conduct or fraud holding opinion work product to be absolutely protected holding opinion work product may be discovered when mental impressions are at issue and need for material is compelling holding that opinion work product is entitled to nearly absolute protection with limited exceptions