107). The district court’s reliance on Reynolds as authority to conduct in camera proceedings after forcing the government to answer the Complaint, thereby revealing the secret fact of employment, is likewise misplaced. The Reynolds Court held that when this is the case we should not jeopardize national security by “insisting upon an examination of the evidence, even by the judge alone, in chambers.” Reynolds, 345 U.S. at 10, 73 S.Ct. 528 (emphasis added). Reynolds recognized that in those situations described by Totten as “inevitably leadpng] to the disclosure of matters which the law itself regards as confidential,” Totten, 92 U.S. at 107, no amount of judicial oversight is sufficient to protect the national security interests at stake. Y Although I do not think 37 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The majority seeks to avoid this second
holding that if a document falls within the scope of the public records statute then the presumption favoring disclosure applies holding if a plaintiffs claim is concerned with rights created within the contractual relationship it falls within the tucker act holding that bankruptcy rule 4004 is not jurisdictional and falls within a courts adjudicatory authority holding that subject matter jurisdiction relates to whether a plaintiffs claim falls within a class of claims which a court is empowered to hear holding that the complaint stated a claim under the flsa where it alleged that parties were an employer and employees within meaning of act and that the defendantemployers operation constitutes an enterprise engaged in commerce  within the meaning of  the act