circuit court indicated that it would conduct an in camera review of the Andrews claim file notes. However, even though Twin City complied and provided the court with the Andrews claim file notes, the court failed to make any findings to support its conclusions. Twin City subsequently offered to provide the court with copies of the 199 “other” claim file notes for in camera review, which offer the court refused. While we do not hold that there is a procedural requirement to conduct an in camera review before ruling on a party’s assertion of the attorney-client privilege, the present facts establish that Twin City satisfied its burden of triggering the circuit court’s obligation to conduct an in camera review of the disputed docu ments. See DM & E, 2009 S.D. 69, ¶ 48, 771 N.W.2d at 686 (<HOLDING>). See also Unklesbay, 855 N.E.2d at 522
holding that the party asserting notice error has the burden of demonstrating prejudice recognizing that the burden on summary judgment shifts to the nonmoving party once the moving party has met its initial responsibility of showing the absence of a triable issue of fact and that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment if the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of the case recognizing privilege holding that the party asserting privilege must make a showing to justify withholding materials if that is challenged holding that a sentencing decision will be affirmed if challenged factor is permissible and other factors are not challenged