balance between a party's need for information concerning an expert witness's potential bias and the witness’s right to be free from burdensome and intrusive production requests." Id. at 522. Courts in at least two other states have used a similar balancing test, heavily weighted against forcing expert witnesses to produce their income tax records. See Ex Parte Morris, 530 So.2d 785, 789 (Ala. 1988) (weighing liberal discovery rules against "the emerging qualified privilege disfavoring disclosure of one’s income tax records” and finding any "incremental value” of information in such records substantially outweighed by prejudice production imposes on non-party over non-controlling issue); Allen v.Super. Ct. of Contra Costa County, 151 Cal.App.3d 447, 198 Cal.Rptr. 737, 740-41 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Contrary to Marron’s assertion, Rowe v. State
holding that unless discovery is granted as a matter of statute court rule or the constitution discovery is within the discretion of the trial court whose ruling will be upheld on appeal absent an abuse of discretion holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records holding that when considering civil rights against abusive discovery and state constitutional right to privacy court must carefully weigh privacy rights of nonparties against factors including the real needs of the litigant who seeks discovery and court abuses its discretion when it fails to require a less intrusive method of discovery such as conducting a deposition without production of records holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion to extend discovery where no effort was made to explain why the requested discovery could not have taken place within the original discovery period