under Rule 16, under today’s ruling only the trial court can compel production of data, and the decision to do so is discretionary. In any event, we do not read Super.Ct.Crim.R. 16(b)(2) to conflict with our ruling here. Rule 16(b)(2) states: Except as to scientific or medical reports, this paragraph does not authorize the discovery or inspection of reports, memoranda, or other internal defense documents made by the defendant, or his attorneys or agents in connection with the investigation or defense of the case.... Usually, any report made by an agent of the defendant that could form the basis of intended expert testimony would take the form of a scientific or medical report and so would not fall within this rule. Even were such a report to take another form, however, Rul D.C.1977) (<HOLDING>). 6 . Nor is it likely that, even if relevant
holding that violation of rule 16 in that case was not harmless error holding that frcp 16 is virtually identical to rcfc 16 in the case of waiver for failure to file a pretrial motion and therefore applying standards developed under the federal rules holding that reversal is proper only when a rule 16 violation results in prejudice to substantial rights holding that superctcrimr 16 is to be construed consistently with the federal rule holding rule 16 does not apply to oral statements other than statements of the defendant