instructions. (The evolution of "dominant pur- pose" is considered at length in our opinion in United States v. Vang, supra, 128 F.3d at 1070.72.) The Fourth Circuit stated sensibly in United States v. Bennett, supra, 364 F.2d at 77, 78 n. 4, that "the `dominant motive' test seems completely inappro- priate in a

ce on the CVRA and the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act as granting authority for the district court to allow discovery. Id. at 234. The Fourth Circuit observed that, "[t]his was wise strategy, as nothing in those two statutes support the district court's exercise of power." Id. The appellate court

f the mental impressions? conclusions, opin- ions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation. The Fourth Circuit has explained that this formulation of the doctrine divides work product into two categories, "fact work product," which may be discovered upon a