With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". stated above, the intervention is for the limited purpose of objecting to Judge Boyle’s decision. If the motions were denied, the Court would still have to address Liggett’s objections. Further, in an effort to avoid delaying these proceedings the putative intervenors have already filed their objections, the consideration of which are contingent upon the Court’s decision with respect to these motions. Accordingly, the Court finds that the only possible prejudice the plaintiffs might face is the added expense of answering the extra objections, a condition the Court finds an insufficient basis to deny the Rule 24 motions. (ii) Disposition of an interest which the intervenors would otherwise be unable to protect For the sake of brevity, the Court will address together both (3d Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>) (collecting cases). As the D.C. Circuit stated

A: holding declaration or affidavit must support work product claim for documents listed solely as work product on privilege log
B: holding that failure to timely assert attorneyclient privilege constitutes waiver
C: recognizing intervention to assert both the attorneyclient and work product privileges
D: recognizing that a district court should allow intervention by a client in the first instance as soon as the attorneyclient privilege issue is raised
C.