In a personal injury case in a Florida circuit court, the plaintiff's attorney serves an interrogatory asking the defendant to identify all individuals who witnessed the incident. The defendant's attorney objects, claiming the list of eyewitnesses is protected work product because it was compiled by the defense's private investigator in anticipation of litigation. How should the court rule on the objection?
-
A
Sustain the objection because information gathered by a party's representative in anticipation of litigation is always protected work product.
-
B
Overrule the objection because the identity and location of persons with knowledge of discoverable matter is not protected work product.
-
C
Sustain the objection unless the plaintiff can demonstrate a substantial need for the list and an inability to obtain the information through other means without undue hardship.
-
D
Overrule the objection because work product protection only applies to the mental impressions and legal theories of the attorney, not facts gathered by an investigator.