Defendants request in camera interviews of the informants directed to these issues. Id. H 58. The Government opposes such disclosure, arguing that, through voluntary discovery conducted over the past 18 months, Defendants have been provided with the substance and particulars of the informants’ testimony based on information as revealed in the copies of the various Title III applications Defendants received through voluntary discovery from the Government. Government’s Response at 27. However, the Government does not state that the confidential informants will not testify for the Government at trial. Substantial policy considerations override the need for full disclosure of informants’ identities. Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 61, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957) (<HOLDING>). Disclosure of the identity of confidential
holding that where an authorized disclosure is voluntarily made to a nonfederal party whether or not that disclosure is denominated confidential the government waives any claim that the information is exempt from disclosure under the deliberative process privilege holding that informers privilege must yield to disclosure at trial if necessary to a fair determination recognizing privilege holding that the inadvertent disclosure of a privileged document does not waive the attorneyclient privilege if attorney took all reasonable steps to avoid disclosure and asserted the privilege as soon as the disclosure became known holding attorneyclient privilege protects disclosure of communications but does not protect client from disclosure of underlying facts