1999 WL 109566 (E.D.La. March 2, 1999); Barna v. United States, No. 95 C 6552, 1997 WL 417847 (N.D.Ill. July 23,1997) (reasoning that the jury is entitled to know about anything, including work product, that influenced an expert witness’s opinion in order to assess credibility); 8 Charles Allan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, and Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2016.2 at 251-52 (2d ed.1994); Cf. Johnson v. Gmeinder, 191 F.R.D. 638 (D.Kan.2000) (addressing only the disclosure of fact work product, as opposed to opinion and mental impression work product). However, several courts, and at least one commentator, have reached the opposite conclusion. The leading case rejecting the “bright line” rule is Haworth, Inc. v. Herman Miller, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 289 (W.D.Mich. 1995) (<HOLDING>). See also Nexxus Prods. Co. v. CVS New York,
holding that disclosure during discovery of certain kinds of information including privileged material trade secrets attorney work product or material involving a confidential informant could constitute a material injury of an irreparable nature holding that trial court properly refused to permit disclosure of privileged communications in part because use of the privileged information was not essential to the defense holding that the advisory committee note should be read only to require disclosure of factual material contained in otherwise privileged documents and that clear and unambiguous language would be required to override the work product privilege holding that the inadvertent disclosure of a privileged document does not waive the attorneyclient privilege if attorney took all reasonable steps to avoid disclosure and asserted the privilege as soon as the disclosure became known holding that a court must review all of the documents claimed as privileged and cannot rely on a random sampling of documents to determine privilege