v. Balax, Inc., 43 F.R.D. 368, 372 (E.D.Wis.1968)). Additionally, opinion work product materials are more carefully protected than factual work product materials. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 33 F.3d 342, 348 (4th Cir.1994); In re Circle K Corp., 1997 WL 31197, *6, 1997 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 713, *18 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 1997) (affirming line of cases holding that opinion work product is to be “granted particular solicitude” and “limit[ing] the disclosure to the extent necessary to avoid unfairness”). While the work product privilege is broad, it may be waived by its holder depending upon the circumstances. Nobles, 422 U.S. at 239-40, 95 S.Ct. at 2170-71. Where work product materials are used testi-monially, the privilege over those materials is waived. Id. at 240 n. 14, 95 S.Ct at 2171 n. 14 (<HOLDING>). Courts are divided, however, on the issue of
holding that investigative report regarding potential premises liability claim was protected work product holding defendants statement that presentence report was correct did not constitute admission to the nature and cireumstances of the crime reflected in the report holding that the admission of a report was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove its truth but to impeach the veracity of the witnesss direct testimony holding that defendants use of investigative report to refresh witnesss recollection waived defendants work product privilege as to that part of the report that related to the testimony offered holding that police report of witnesss statement was inadmissible because witness had not adopted report as accurate when matter was fresh in his memory