privilege applied to Zoufal’s statements because the City failed to show that a full examination of Zoufal would reveal client confidences. However, the district court determined that Zoufal gave ranking members of the CPD advice about Rehling’s placement and the City’s obligations under the ADA, and that an examination of Rehling in regard to those issues would reveal that information. This is exactly the kind of legal advice the privilege was meant to protect. Although we regard the applicability of the attorney-client privilege in the context of this case to be a close question, our review of the district court’s privilege determination is conducted under the highly deferential clearly erroneous standard. See United States v. Frederick, 182 F.3d 496, 499-500 (7th Cir. 1999) (<HOLDING>); In re Teranis, 128 F.3d 469, 471 (7th
holding that the district courts credibility assessments are entitled to deference and reviewed for clear error holding that findings of fact are reviewed for clear error holding that the district courts good faith finding is reviewed for clear error holding that a determination as to a defendants credibility for a safety valve reduction is a factual finding that is reviewed for clear error holding that a district courts determination as to the applicability of a privilege is reviewed for clear error