In Tattletale Portable Alarm Systems, Inc. v. Calfee, Halter & Griswold, LLP, No. 10-civ-226 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 30, 2011), the court ordered a deponent to produce a timeline prepared by his attorneys that the deponent used to refresh his recollection prior to his deposition. Fed. R. Evid. 612 provides that a court has the discretion to order the production of a document used before testifying to refresh a witness’s recollection if it is necessary in the interests of justice. The courts applying FRE 612 have applied fact-intensive multi-factor tests to determine whether fairness requires that a document used to refresh recollection should be produced. Where, as here, the document is work product, there is a tension between FRE 612 and Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(3). Courts exercise more caution in ordering production of “core” work product (versus “ordinary” work product). Courts consider whether it appears that coaching has occurred, whether the document is “core work product,” or whether the request is simply a “fishing expedition.” Here, the court found that a basic timeline that contained only a compilation of dates and no attorney mental impressions, opinions or conclusions was only ordinary work product and not “core” work product. Thus, the court concluded that, on balance, “use of a document which possesses little, if any, work product value, for the express purpose of refreshing an important witness’ recollection about dates, some of which may be important to the proof of either the claim in chief, or the defense to it, calls for it to be produced to the opposing party in order to further the interest of justice.”