Plaintiff, a citizen of Nebraska, filed an action against Defendant, a citizen of Iowa, in federal district court. Plaintiff claimed injuries based on Defendant's medical malpractice. Defendant has sent Plaintiff an interrogatory seeking the names of any non-testifying experts whom Plaintiff formally consulted. Plaintiff has resisted disclosing the experts' names. In her motion to compel an answer to her interrogatory, Defendant concedes that she does not have any special need for that information but believes that the relevant federal rule does not limit discovery of the information that she seeks. How should the court rule on Defendant's motion to compel discovery consistent with the Ager case, the lead case in the casebook? A. The court should grant the motion because the relevant federal rule limits discovery only of facts known or opinions held by such an expert and not the name of the expert. B. The court should deny the motion because the clear intent of the rule was to prevent the disclosure of the name of such an expert absent the showing of need. C. The court should grant the motion because, despite the uncertain language and history of the rule, the courts have allowed discovery of names of such experts to deter expert-shopping. D. The court should deny the motion because, consistent with the Ager case, information about such experts is never discoverable