qualify [for Exemption 5], a document must ... satisfy two conditions: its source must be a Government agency, and it must fall within the ambit of a privilege against discovery under judicial standards that would govern litigation against the agency that holds it.” Dep’t of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 8, 121 S.Ct. 1060, 149 L.Ed.2d 87 (2001). Although the source of the Bechtel draft was possibly not, strictly speaking, the agency, the State of Nevada does not argue that this fact removes it from possible Exemption 5 coverage. In some circumstances where a document is produced by a contractor or consultant for an agency, courts have deemed it an "intra-agency” document. See, e.g., Hoover v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 611 F.2d 1132, 1137-38 (5th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). 16 . Nevertheless, "opinion” work product, as
holding that an appraisal by an outside expert is an intraagency memorandum holding that an arrest made by an officer outside his jurisdiction does not violate the fourth amendment holding that an unsworn memorandum is a pleading and not an evidentiary document therefore it had no evidentiary value and should not have been admitted as an exhibit holding that an intraagency report containing an agency attorneys legal conclusions and reasoning falls within the exemption holding vague charge of discrimination in an internal letter or memorandum is insufficient to constitute opposition to an unlawful employment practice