Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): obligations potentially impact a recognized privilege, an in camera review is generally the preferred method for resolving the competing compulsions. R.C.M. 703(f)(4)(C) states that where the holder of evidence requests relief from compliance with a subpoena or order of production, the military judge may direct that evidence be submitted for an in camera review to determine whether such relief should be granted. In camera proceedings are specifically provided for in other situations involving privileged material. Both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces have approved of in camera review as a mechanism to resolve attorneys’ claims of privilege in criminal discovery matters. See United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 568, 109 S.Ct. 2619, 105 L.Ed.2d 469 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Romano, 46 M.J. at 275 (holding that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the joint defense privilege preserved the attorneyclient privilege against waiver in the context of a group with common interests seeking common representation (B) holding that defendants privilege login combination with the in camera review requested by plaintiffsis adequate to determine whether the elements of the privilege have been established (C) recognizing privilege (D) 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 (E) holding that the information is not protected by attorneyclient privilege
Output (English): holding that the joint defense privilege preserved the attorneyclient privilege against waiver in the context of a group with common interests seeking common representation