so restricted. Rather, ... the doctrine is an intensely practical one, grounded in the realities of litigation in our adversary system. One of those realities is that attorneys often must rely on the assistance of investigators and other agents in the compilation of materials in preparation for trial. It is therefore necessary that the doctrine protect materials prepared by agents for the attorney as well as those prepared by the attorney himself. Id. at 238-39, 95 S.Ct. 2170. Accordingly, federal courts have consistently ruled that the work product doctrine is not inapplicable merely because the material was prepared by or for a party’s insurer or agents of the insurer. See Railroad Salvage of Conn. Inc. v. Japan Freight Consolidators (U.S.A.), Inc., 97 F.R.D. 37, 41 (E.D.N.Y.1983) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 779 F.2d 38 (2d Cir.1985); Home Ins.
holding that correspondence between defendant and its liability carriers was protected holding that the prohibition of inmatetoinmate correspondence was not an unconstitutional infringement of prisoners first amendment rights recognizing correspondence appeared to establish a settlement relationship between the parties given the letters presented an attempt to curb further litigation recognizing first amendment and fourteenth amendment interests in inmate correspondence holding that a sixmonth gap between the protected activity and the employees termination was insufficient to infer that the protected activity was a contributing factor