In Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355, 397, 15 Cal. Rptr. 90, 364 P.2d 266, the court held that statements of witnesses taken by defense investigators were not within the attorney-client privilege. Greyhound questioned the validity of Holm's holding that photographs transmitted to counsel were within the attorney-client privilege, and determined the work product privilege, as set forth in the federal rule in Hickman, ( Hickman v. Taylor, supra, 329 U.S. 495, 91 L. Ed. 451, 67 S. Ct. 385) was not the law of California. (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 56 Cal. 2d at pp. 398-401.) In Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) the trial court granted the plaintiff's request for production of statements taken from independent, percipient witnesses to an accident that was the subject of the litigation. The statements had been taken by adjusters and investigators for use by the defendant's attorneys. The defendant asserted error on the basis, among others, that the statements were attorney work product. (Id. at pp. 386-387.) The court stated that "the work product privilege does not exist in this state." (Id. at p. 401.) But it also quoted extensively and with apparent approval from the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Hickman v. Taylor (1947) 329 U.S. 495, where the high court distinguished, under federal discovery rules, between a request for production of an attorney's "written memoranda of impressions received from oral statements and conversations had with independent witnesses" and a request for discovery of written statements taken from independent witnesses. (Greyhound, at p. 400, citing Hickman, at p. 511.) The Greyhound court upheld the trial court's order that the defendant provide discovery of the witness statements. (Greyhound, at p. 401.)