ing on issues involving the work product doctrine in step cases. See, e.g. Balt. Transit Co. Mezzanotti, 227 Md. 8, 14.p. 2, 174 A.2d 768 (citing Hickman I Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) as authority in in- terpreting the workproduct doctrine i under Maryland law • E.I.du Pont de Ne