With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Additionally, at the Vandevender trial, Sheetz employees testified that Sheetz had concluded, with the advice of counsel — and after Ms. Vandevender brought her claim of wrongful termination — that the personnel policy that was applied to Ms. Vandevender clearly violated West Virginia law. However, Sheetz's witnesses also acknowledged at trial that Sheetz had done nothing to identify or correct any adverse personnel actions against other Sheetz West Virginia employees that were based on the illegal policy. Additionally, the advice of counsel strategy in the Vandevender case could have made relevant what Sheetz had told Andrews and vice versa — and possibly even what Sheetz had told Bowles and vice versa. See, e.g., Wender v. United Services Auto. Ass'n., 434 A.2d 1372, 1374 (D.C.1981) (<HOLDING>). See also generally, Annotation, "Legal

A: holding that a client only waives the privilege to the extent necessary to reveal the advice of counsel he placed at issue
B: holding that the information is not protected by attorneyclient privilege
C: holding that an invocation of the advice of counsel defense waives the attorneyclient privilege
D: holding communications between corporate counsel and corporations employees made for the purpose of rendering legal advice protected by attorneyclient privilege
C.