lack of clear appellate authority favoring such a bright-line rule, and the difference between this state’s discovery rules and the federal rules, makes this court reluctant to adopt such a policy. While a full disclosure rule would augment the defendant’s ability to discern the amount of attorney influence on the expert’s testimony, that reason alone is not enough for us to adopt such a wide-sweeping rule. Moreover, the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has recently declared that “The policy reasons supporting the ‘bright-line’ rule in favor of disclosure of materials disclosed to an expert are not compelling and ignore the policy considerations that compel protection of core work product.” Krisa v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc’y, 196 F.R.D. 254, 259 (M.D. Pa. 2000) (<HOLDING>). A REVIEW OF APPLICABLE CASES FROM OTHER
holding that cover letters from counsel to an expert that do not contain mental impressions opinions or conclusions of counsel are discoverable but written notes that contained the lawyers mental impressions were protected holding that materials prepared by an investigative audit committee were not work product because they were not the mental impressions conclusions opinions or legal theories of an attorney holding opinion work product may be discovered when mental impressions are at issue and need for material is compelling 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 holding testimony of a treating physician is not subject to discovery procedures under the iowa rule governing discovery of experts be cause the treating physicians mental impressions and opinions were not acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial