t fact that target letters and subpoenas were issued relating to certain financial offenses. See M·, DEs 282 and 283 submitted in camera and U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554 ( 1989)( disclosing materials to the district court does not have the legal effect of terminating a privilege thereby allowing partie

ee infra. Therefore, an in camera hearing should occur to determine what objections and privileges must be raised before disclosure is made. U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 575 (1989)(disclosing materials to the district court does not have the legal effect of 4 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 559

Therefore, an in camera hearing should occur to determine what objections and privileges must be raised before further disclosure is made. U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 575 (1989)(disclosing materials 2 Because of the relief sought in this Rule 4 Appeal, Epstein's civil lawyers have not obtained a cop

documents under seal for in camera review by a neutral and detached magistrate or by court-appointed special masters, see, e.g., United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 570-71, 109 S.Ct. 2619, 2629-30, 105 L.Ed.2d 469 (1989); In re Grand July Proceedings, 867 F.2d 539, 540 (9th Cir.1989); In re Impou