hearings; defense counsel was not. The appellants base their argument on the text of CIPA and Rule 16, both of which refer to “a written statement to be inspected by the court [/judge] alone.” CIPA § 4, 18 U.S.C. app. 3 § 4; Fed R.Crim. P. 16(d)(1) (emphasis added). No mention is made in CIPA or Rule 16 about a hearing in which counsel participate. Ex parte hearings are generally disfavored. See, e.g., United States v. Kenney, 911 F.2d 315, 321 (9th Cir.1990). In a case involving classified documents, however, ex parte, in camera hearings in which government counsel participates to the exclusion of defense counsel are part of the process that the district court may use in order to decide the relevancy of the information. See United States v. Yunis, 867 F.2d 617, 620 (D.C.Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Such a hearing is appropriate if the court
recognizing that information disclosed in private is not a public disclosure under the fca holding party seeking disqualification waives attorneyclient privilege as to the court so the court may assess the contents of allegedly confidential information and the party may present the information either in a hearing out of the presence of the party against whom confidentiality is to be protected or in camera inspection holding that the only statements not disclosed were the probation officers recommendations which did not constitute factual information as contemplated by the statute holding in camera review by trial court to determine whether crime stoppers information contained brady information would meet the balance of defendants constitutional rights against the states interest in fostering law enforcement holding an ex parte in camera hearing in which the government explained the specific damage to national defense if information were disclosed