Dep’t of Justice, 591 F.2d 753 (D.C.Cir.1978). “Mitigation need not be actual or imminent, it need only be ‘fairly foreseeable.’ ” Hertzberg v. Veneman, 273 F.Supp.2d 67, 79 (D.D.C.2003) (citing Coastal States Gas. Corp. v. Dep’t of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 865 (D.C.Cir.1980)). While some articulable claim likely to lead to litigation must have arisen, the work product doctrine protects communications even if no specific claim is contemplated. Hertzberg, 273 F.Supp.2d at 79 (citing Schiller v. N.L.R.B., 964 F.2d 1205, 1208 (D.C.Cir.1992). Courts must inquire whether in light of the nature of the document and the factual situation of the case, the document can fairly be said to have been prepared because of the prospect of litigation. See In re Sealed Case, 146 F.3d 881, 884 (D.C.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). EPIC articulates no reason to doubt the
holding that the test for good faith is the actual belief of the party and not the reasonableness of that belief holding that an opposer must have a reasonable basis for his belief of damage holding that a party must at least have a subjective belief that litigation was a real possibility and that belief must have been objectively reasonable holding that a plaintiff must show his belief was objectively reasonable in light of the facts and record presented holding that the subjective belief that going to the police would have been futile is insufficient to demonstrate the lack of a reasonable alternative to breaking the law