§ 26.70[5][b] (Daniel R. Coquillette et al. eds., 3d ed.1997). This doctrine encourages attorneys to prepare thoroughly for trial without fear that their thoughts and efforts will be disclosed to an opponent. See Hickman, 329 U.S. at 516, 67 S.Ct. at 396 (Jackson, J., concurring). Although the district court recognized the substantial need/undue burden test as controlling the issue of waiver of work product protection, it declined to apply that test because it concluded Frontier had otherwise waived the protection when it “placed this material at issue by filing suit for indemnity.” Order Granting Motion to Compel Discovery at 7. This conclusion is faulty as a matter of law and thus constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173 (10th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). As the district court correctly suggested, a
holding that a petition raises a question of law when it alleges a factfinding which is flawed by an error of law or an abuse of discretion that is based on a legally erroneous standard holding that abuse of discretion in denying a 60b motion is established only when no reasonable person could agree with the district court and there is no abuse of discretion if a reasonable person could disagree as to the propriety of the courts action holding that a district courts decision on whether to hold a daubert hearing is reviewed only for abuse of discretion holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding abuse of discretion is established if district court decision was based on an error of law