π sought to get a protective order for the shielding of documents related to her that were in the possession of her psychiatrist, Dr. Lucas.
Dr. Lucas was retained by π to perform a diagnostic review and personality profile of π. After seeing π once, Dr. Lucas prepared a report for π's counsel.
Issue: Whether an expert's report(s) regarding the facts underlying the case are discoverable.
Holding: Yes, but only under "exceptional circumstances", per FRCP 26(b)(4)(D)(ii).
Reasoning: ∆ could not have obtained the information that π based the suit off of—Dr. Lucas's report—through any other manner, even through a Rule 35 examination, but a Rule 26 expert disclosure.