the EPA requested this information not-to uncover additional- information about Site operations, PRPs, or Gurley’s assets, but to use “Gurley’s understandably less than adequate recall as a means of attacking him.” Id. at 17. These claims were previously rejected by Judge Turner. See United States v. Gurley, No. 93-2775-TUA, slip, op. at 5-6. As a result, Gurley is es-topped from arguing these same claims a second time. Moreover, even if Gurley was not estopped, the EPA has the authority to seek information from Gurley even if the EPA already possessed-from other sources-some of the information it was seeking from Gurley. See Barkman, 784 F.Supp. at 1189; Crown Roll Leaf I, 19 Envtl. L. Rep. at 20265. See also United States v. Pretty Products, Inc., 780 F.Supp. 1488, 1507 (S.D.Oh.1991) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, Gur-ley was not justified in
holding that certain dual purpose documents created in response to the epa information request and consent order were protected from discovery by the work product doctrine as they were created because of potential litigation with the epa holding that private parties may contract to transfer financial responsibilities under cercla holding that  a request for information and explanation is not sufficient to constitute a claim absent a demand for action by the insured holding claim based on failure to disclose information to the epa preempted holding that parties subject to a cercla investigative request may not decide for the epa when they have provided sufficient information