the circuit court on remand concludes that the attorney-client privilege applies to these documents, the materials would not be subject to the work-product doctrine because they would not be “otherwise discoverable.” Assuming the subject documents are “otherwise discoverable,” the crux of the work-produet dispute between the parties is whether the materials were “prepared in anticipation of litigation.” HRCP Rule 26(b)(4); see Ass’n of Apartment Owners of Waikoloa Beach Villas ex rel. Bd. of Directors v. Sunstone Waikoloa, LLC, 130 Hawai'i 152, 161, 307 P.3d 132, 141 (2013) (noting that the work-produet doctrine applied because an opinion letter was a prerequisite for litigation and thus “prepared in anticipation of litigation”); Save Sunset Beach, 102 Hawai'i at 484, 78 P.3d at 20 (<HOLDING>). We note that “[t]he burden of establishing
holding that court erred in admitting letter as business record where testimony was not adequate to establish that the letter was compiled as a matter of regular practice as opposed to one prepared in anticipation of litigation holding that there was no question that the full and fair opportunity element was met where there was no indication that such an opportunity was unavailable holding that the workproduct doctrine was inapplicable where there was no indication a memorandum was prepared in anticipation of litigation holding that the work product doctrine applied to a document prepared in anticipation of litigation and was therefore protected from disclosure under foia exemption 5 holding that not all of claims file was prepared in anticipation of litigation and noting that the majority of cases that have dealt with the issue of whether investigative materials prepared by insurance claims adjusters is workproduct prepared in anticipation of litigation have held that since insurance companies have a routine duty to investigate accidents such materials are not prepared in anticipation of litigation