With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ADEM was requiring action by Mobile Gas. McFadden, therefore, acted as a consultant in anticipation of litigation and the documents created by McFadden were created when Mobile Gas was anticipating and responding to litigation. See Atlantic Richfield Co., (No. 93-CV-0950E(H), Aug. 21, 1997) [ (not reported in F.Supp.) ] (documents are created in anticipation of litigation when they are prepared with a subjective belief that litigation might ensue and when the subjective belief is objectively reasonable). “Federal Courts have extended the work-product protection to documents prepared by environmental consultants in response to an inquiry from a governmental environmental agency. See In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Mark Torf/Torf Environmental Management), 357 F.3d 900, 910 (9th Cir.[2004]) (<HOLDING>); Atlantic Richfield Co. .... (holding that

A: holding that parties subject to a cercla investigative request may not decide for the epa when they have provided sufficient information
B: holding claim based on failure to disclose information to the epa preempted
C: 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
D: 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
C.