the district court may use in order to decide the relevancy of the information.” Klimavicius-Viloria, 144 F.3d at 1261. Seda especially protests three occasions during trial in which the court held closed hearings with cleared counsel for both parties and then excused defense counsel and met ex parte with the prosecutors. These brief ex parte hearings, which directly followed the hearings with defense counsel, were held at the court’s request to clarify issues related to the court’s prior CIPA rulings. CIPA does not limit the court’s discretion to hold an ex parte conference if it is required by some overriding necessity such as the necessity to protect sensitive information related to national security, as it was here. See- United States v. Thompson, 827 F.2d 1254, 1258 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Apart from his general objections to the ex
holding that the court should look to the actions of the relevant party and determine whether that party fails to insist on its contractual rights or acts inconsistently with such rights holding that coparties become opposing parties emphasis added within the meaning of fedrcivp 13a after one such party pleads an initial crossclaim against the other with no discussion of whether an opposing party must be deemed a defendant holding that the opposing party must show substantial harm recognizing that situations where the court acts with the benefit of only one sides presentation are uneasy compromises with some overriding necessity such as the need to act quickly or to keep sensitive information from the opposing party holding notice unreasonable where it was served the afternoon of the day before the presentation of the petition to the court