request on the fingerprints and such. Then you submitted interrogatories and production requests for documents relating to whether the gun had been wiped, etc. The judge ordered that she didn't have to answer because it might reveal her mental processes.

Is there something I am missing?

Because last I checked, protecting mental processes had to do with protecting a client or the state's strategy in an adversarial context--like in the simplest case, you can't sue to get your opponents notes on the case in order to know what they will say at trial. In this case, though, it's the right to know requests that are at issue. Allowing her to avoid producing documentation about the placement of fingerprints on the clip does nothing to protect her mental process on the right to know case. That's a pretty absurd order.