Dissenting Opinion by
Justice CUNNINGHAM.I respectfully dissent.
This Court has long recognized that the party asserting a privilege such as the one *324established by CR 26.02(4)(b) bears the heavy burden of proving its applicability. Because “they contravene the fundamental principle that the public has a right to every man’s evidence”, privileges should be strictly construed. Haney v. Yates, 40 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Ky.2000) quoting Sisters of Charity Health Sys. v. Raikes, 984 S.W.2d 464, 468 (Ky.1998). “Broad claims of ‘privilege’ are disfavored when balanced against the need for litigants to have access to relevant or material evidence.” Meenach v. General Motors Corp., 891 S.W.2d 398, 402 (Ky.1995).
I do not believe the heavy burden of proof has been met in this case. The trial court was presented with four affidavits and deposition testimony and conducted a telephonic hearing on Appellants’ motion to exclude. As recognized by the majority, the evidence presented conflicted versions of what transpired between Dr. Bonnarens and Mr. Casi. Appellants called no witnesses to resolve these issues. Furthermore, the trial court was unable to determine with any level of certainty that the documents supposedly furnished to Dr. Bonnarens actually constituted “work product”, as Appellants never presented these documents for the trial court’s inspection. In short, the evidence equally supported two conclusions: that Mr. Casi provided work product documents to Dr. Bonnarens, or that Mr. Casi and Dr. Bon-narens simply had a brief and general discussion about septic hips in children. In light of the inconclusive nature of the evidence presented, I find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of Appellants’ motion to exclude.
Moreover, I do not believe that relief in the extraordinary form of a writ is warranted in this case, as adequate remedy exists by way of direct appeal. Should Dr. Bonnarens be called as a witness, Appellants would be entitled to elicit on cross-examination the fact that Dr. Bonnarens had previously been consulted by opposing counsel. See Miller ex rel. Monticello Banking Co. v. Marymount Med. Center, 125 S.W.3d 274, 284 (Ky.2004) (in concluding that it was proper to allow cross-examination of expert witness regarding her prior consultation with opposing counsel, “the jury was entitled to know who retained and paid each expert witness ... so as to be able to judge each witness’s overall credibility”).
For these reasons, I must respectfully dissent.