With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The plaintiffs have been allowed generous access to Byl via interrogatories as guided by Mass.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(4). They may have access to each expert’s name, the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion according to the rule. See Mass.R.Civ.P. 26(b). It is only when the expert’s answers are inadequate, incomplete, inconsistent, or when the discovering party is unable to obtain equivalent information through other means, that a court should permit a deposition of an expert witness to be taken. Denzer v. Barck, 18 Mass. L. Rptr. 709, *2 (Mass.Super.Ct. 2005), quoting Lozoraitis v. Lachman, 16 Mass. L. Rptr. 809, *2 (Mass.Super.Ct. 2003) (<HOLDING>). The moving papers included seven and one-half

A: recognizing a similar exception to its rule with respect to corporations
B: holding after review of the more liberal fedrcivp 26b4 that the massachusetts rule is more restrictive with respect to allowance of expert depositions
C: holding to that effect with respect to rule 64
D: holding that the more transformative the new work the more likely the use of the old work is a fair one
B.