importantly, (3) “[w]here the disclosure of an informer’s identity, or of the contents of his communication, is relevant and helpful to the defense of the accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause ....” Id. at 60. The first limitation provides that where the informant’s communication will not reveal the informant’s identity, such communication may be divulged. This limitation applies where the government has concealed both the informant’s identity and the contents of that informant’s communication. In such a situation, if it is possible to release only the contents of the communication, without making obvious the informant’s identity, the government is often required to reveal such information. Carbajal v. Village of Homestead, 2003 WL 23138447 at *4 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, however, ASG has already
holding that a release of unknown claims has no effect in the absence of evidence apart from the words of the release holding that inclusion of a general release was merely a suggestion of how to terminate the lawsuit and that acceptance was not qualified on use of the specific release and party was willing to discuss the terms of a release holding that government should release contents of videotaped tip where contents of the tape do not reveal identity of those involved holding that release discharges only those tortfeasors specifically named in the release agreement holding that for purposes of revoking supervised release the applicable guidelines are those in effect at the time of the supervised release violations rather than those in effect at the time of initial offense