896, 898 (11th Cir.1988). The court also will be able to determine whether any of the privileges asserted has been waived or otherwise undercut, as urged by appellee at oral argument. It would be premature for this court to determine these issues at the present time. 3. No Waiver of Right to In Camera Hearing We next determine whether appellants’ failure to request an in camera hearing before the bankruptcy court constitutes a waiver of their right to one on remand. Although those asserting privileges in response to a subpoena generally are required to do so on a question-by-question and/or document-by-document basis, see In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 831 F.2d 225, 227 (11th Cir.1987), a blanket assertion does not waive later, specific assertions under all circumstances, see id. at 228 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, appellants’ instant argument
holding that plaintiff in erisa action was entitled to restitution under similar circumstances holding that privilege applies in similar factual circumstances holding so under circumstances similar to the present ones holding that no discovery is permissible in similar circumstances holding under similar circumstances that the california court of appeals finding of no pretext was unreasonable