Tobacco Co., 177 F.R.D. 491, 498 (D.Kan. 1997) (stating that "[e]ven if there is a general prospect of litigation, a document is not protected by work product immunity if the document was prepared merely in the regular course of business.” Id.) 56 . See Marten, 1998 WL 13244, at * 11. 57 . Id. 58 . See U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bunge N. Am., Inc., No. 05-2192-JWL, 2008 WL 2548129, at *7 (D. Kan. June 23, 2008) (overruling work-product objection because plaintiff, in its privilege log, relied only on eonclusory assertions that the documents were created in anticipation of litigation and did not provide sufficient information for the court to determine whether the materials were created in the ordinary course of business); Bo-hannon v. Honda Motor Co., 127 F.R.D. 536, 539 (D.Kan. 1989) (<HOLDING>); McCoo, 192 F.R.D. at 683 (holding that
holding that because plaintiff could not establish which portions of the tapes had been played in court plaintiff failed to meet his burden holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that plaintiff did not meet his burden to establish workproduct protection because he relied on bare conclusions unsupported by affidavit or other specific explanation holding that a physician who relied only on personal observation without any personal study or experiment to justify his conclusions did not meet the daubert standard