that, mthout revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the other parties to assess the claim”) (emphasis added). It is this Court’s responsibility, and certainly not Plaintiffs’ or Defendants’, to determine whether privilege exists. Am. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., 406 F.3d 867, 880 n. 7 (7th Cir.2005) (“ ‘The responsibility of determining whether the [attorney-client] privilege exists rests upon the District Judge and not upon the lawyer whose client claims the privilege.’ ” (quoting U.S. v. Tratner, 511 F.2d 248, 252 (7th Cir.1975) (citation omitted))). After a document-by-document review, Am. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the US., 406 F.3d 867, 879-880 (7th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>), this Court has determined that the
holding that the trial court may consider documents submitted by the defendant on a motion to dismiss solely for a nonhearsay purpose and therefore may not rely on factual assertions in the documents for the truth of the matter asserted holding that production of documents without a claim of privilege waives the right to later claim that privilege holding that pursuant to the best evidence rule trial testimony relying on documents was inadmissible without submission of such documents or an explanation as to why the documents were unavailable holding that a court must review all of the documents claimed as privileged and cannot rely on a random sampling of documents to determine privilege holding that where original documents were illegally seized those documents as well as all copies had to be returned