1. One reason for the work-product privilege is the worry that, without it, the lawyer's trial strategies will be divulged. Is that the only reason?

2. Keep track of when material is never discoverable under R. 26(b)(3) and when it is discoverable upon a showing of substantial need.

3. Let's say that an interrogatory asks for the names of the people that the defendant or his lawyer has interviewed in anticipation of litigation and whether any reports were made. Is this material subject to the work-product privilege?

4. Let's say that the an interrogatory asks for all the facts concerning the case that a defendant or his lawyer has been able to glean from interviews with witnesses prepared in anticipation of litigation. Is this material subject to the work-product privilege?

5. Let's say that an interrogatory asks a lawyer to put in his own words what was said in an interview with a witness that was prepared in anticipation of litigation. Is this material subject to the work-product privilege in R. 26(b)(3)? 

6. A witness you interviewed said that your client was drunk while driving. You write it up in a witness statement. The plaintiff requests the statement in a document request. May you claim that it is work product under 26(b)(3) and/or Hickman? If an interrogatory asks your client whether he was drunk, may he refuse to answer on the basis of 26(b)(3) and/or Hickman?

7. The plaintiff serves you with a document request asking for witness statements drafted by a private investigator retained by your client prior to hiring you, when he was worried that he might be sued. May you refuse to turn it over under 26(b)(3) and/or Hickman?