With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the act's exemptions be construed narrowly. See Brouillet, at 793. We also reject the trial court's suggested construction. Although the trial court did give the exemption a narrow interpretation, the trial court's interpretation brings RCW 42.17.310(1)(j) into conflict with our court rules establishing the work product rule. The protection of the work product rule is triggered prior to the official initiation of litigation and extends beyond the official termination of litigation. See Heidebrink v. Moriwaki, 104 Wn.2d 392, 400, 706 P.2d 212 (1985) (explaining that the work product rule attaches to documents prepared prior to trial when the specific parties involved have expectations that litigation will occur); Pappas v. Holloway, 114 Wn.2d 198, 210, 787 P.2d 30 (1990) (<HOLDING>); Dever v. Fowler, 63 Wn. App. 35, 47, 816 P.2d

A: holding that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the protection of the work product doctrine
B: holding that opinion work product is entitled to nearly absolute protection with limited exceptions
C: holding that the protection of the work product rule continues after litigation has terminated
D: holding that the party asserting work product protection has the burden of establishing that the doctrine applies
C.