facts of the case. Although Leone reviews state court decisions in determining the privilege’s reach, Leone is still persuasive authority as federal common law. While precedent is scant, federal common law simply has not extended the client-representative privilege as far as California law has. Nor did Leone or the bankruptcy court likely err in considering Hendrick v. Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 944 F.Supp. 187 (W.D.N.Y.1996), Gerheiser v. Stephens, 712 So.2d 1252 (Fla.Ct.App. 1998), or Grubbs v. K-Mart Corp., 161 Mich.App. 584, 411 N.W.2d 477 (1987), all of which relied on state privilege law. Where federal authority is wanting, federal courts may look to authoritative state court decisions and statutes when deciding whether to recognize a new privilege or amend , 793 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Second, where Appellants seek to import a
holding that documents that are created in the ordinary course of business or would have been created irrespective of litigation are not protected by the work product doctrine holding that arguments that are not raised or that are not accompanied by factual and legal support are deemed waived recognizing that this created a cooperative scheme recognizing that prior decisions created confusion on this point recognizing that evidentiary privileges are not lightly created