in camera without revealing trade secret); see also Anderson v. Dep’t of Health and Human Serv., 907 F.2d 936, 942 (10th Cir.1990) (in camera review by court of documents to determine if material could be released to public under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA”) does not equate with release to the public). Just as privileges are not waived and secrets not considered revealed in other contexts by in camera review, a court’s review of documents in camera here would not breach any obligation the Does may have to keep the agreement secret. 9 . Other circuits have similarly treated Totten as the progenitor of the state secrets doctrine, now subject to later-enunciated standards governing recognition of the privilege. See Clift v. United States, 597 F.2d 826, 828-30 (2d Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ehrlichman, 376 F.Supp. 29,
holding that a case analogous to totten should be analyzed under the state secrets privilege and that the case could go forward even though revealing the underlying subject of the lawsuit a secret patent was barred by the privilege recognizing privilege under federal rules holding that a complete prohibition against an opponents use of in camera review to establish the applicability of the crimefraud exception to the attorneyclient privilege is inconsistent with the policies underlying the privilege holding that production of documents without a claim of privilege waives the right to later claim that privilege recognizing privilege