The Dioguardi affidavit provides opinion evidence without sufficient facts in support of his conclusions, whether Federal Rule of Evidence 701 or 702 is applied, and Dioguardi’s affidavit is more than faintly inconsistent with his deposition testimony. The Court will allow Rose, Diog-uardi, and ONEOK a short hearing to attempt to establish the relationship and that the privilege applies to the content of the documents. Southern Union may cross-examine the witnesses and offer controverting evidence only on the limited issues of whether an attorney-client relationship existed and whether the privilege protects MDD00118. The Court also finds that Southern Union has not established that the crime-fraud exception applies. See United States v. de la Jara, 973 F.2d 746 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Chen, 99 F.3d 1495,
holding that even where court has access and has reviewed documents in question proponent of crimefraud exception still must make threshold prima facie showing before court can consider documents in camera to assess applicability of crimefraud exception holding that the press has standing to intervene where not otherwise a party to petition for access to court documents and records 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 district court may consider documents referred to in plaintiffs complaint and central to his claim recognizing common law right of access to judicial documents