the opportunity to substantiate [their] claims of the privilege^] and the court is able to consider the questions asked and the documents requested.” Id. at 1355; see also United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 714, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 3110, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974); In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 831 F.2d 225, 227-28 (11th Cir.1987). The bankruptcy court’s procedure contemplates the appellants’ initial production of redacted documents and submission to questioning at a discovery deposition, during which appellants could refuse to answer appellee’s questions on the basis of privilege, followed by the court’s in camera review of the redacted material, unanswered questions, and responses proffered under seal. This procedure is well accepted in the context of grand jury subpoenas. See id. at 227 (<HOLDING>) (quotation omitted). The procedure set out by
recognizing general requirement that subpoenaed taxpayer must present himself with his records for questioning and as to each question and each record elect to raise or not raise the defense of selfincrimination holding that a defendant who fails to raise a specific issue as the basis for suppression in a motion to suppress to the district court has waived the right to raise that issue on appeal recognizing that the cpapermits a general denial but explaining that a general denial does not raise an issue as to a purported corporate defendants legal existence the defendant must raise such issue by direct negative averment to avoid waiver holding defense crossexamination did not raise issue of intent or identity holding that a petitioner must raise each category of relief to the agency before subsequently raising it in this court