36 . 967 P.2d 1042 (Colo.1998). 37 . See id. at 1053-54. That case decided an appeal of a trial court's grant of an order to show cause why documents should not be disclosed; it was not an appeal of an administrative decision. See id. at 1045. 38 . See id. at 1053 (citing Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826-27 (D.C.Cir.1973)). 39 . See id. 40 . Id. at 1053-54 (citations omitted). 41 . See id. at 1057. Because the Colorado court had not previously specified the procedural requirements for asserting the privilege, that court held that the trial court's in camera review of the documents was "more than an adequate substitute for an evaluation of a Vaughn index." Id. 42 . Capital Info. Group, 923 P.2d at 35 (quoting Doe, 721 P.2d at 625). 43 . See City of Colorado Springs, 967 P.2d at 1057 (<HOLDING>); Daily Gazette Co. v. West Va. Dev. Office,
holding that outside consultants evaluation of working environment and policies was privileged because report contained observations on current atmosphere and suggestions on how to improve division rather than expression of final agency decision holding that appeal from a decision of the attorney general denying legal representation was before the appellate division as of right to review the final decision of a state officer holding that reconsideration of the correctness of property division was barred on appeal from the judgment enforcing that division holding absolutely privileged a communication to an administrative agency designed to prompt action by that agency holding an agency decision is not final during the time the agency considers a petition for review