In Thomas v. Alleyne, 302 A.D.2d 36, the Court directed that full disclosure would occur except in those cases, pursuant to CPLR 3103(a), where the plaintiff seeks a protective order "denying, limiting ... or regulating the use of any disclosure device ... to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice to any person or the courts." (302 A.D.2d at 46.) In the "interest of justice," the court then remanded the case to the trial court to give plaintiff an opportunity to renew her objections and show that the expert in question had an "objectively reasonable belief that, if his or her identity were revealed prior to trial, then he or she would be subject to threats or pressure from other physicians, from representatives of a malpractice insurance carrier, or from any other source." (302 A.D.2d at 47.)