Does The People have to be excluded from a hearing where the District Attorney was not allowed to attend?

9 The People's contention that they should not have been excluded from the hearing, while petitioners were allowed to attend, is without merit. Under the circumstances presented here, the court's only alternative was to hold the hearing in camera. Evidence Code section 915 provides: "(a) Subject to subdivision (b), the presiding officer may not require disclosure of information claimed to be privileged under this division in order to rule on the claim of privilege; provided, however, that in any hearing conducted pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 1524 of the Penal Code in which a claim of privilege is made and the court determines that there is no other feasible means to rule on the validity of such claim other than to require disclosure, the court shall proceed in accordance with subdivision (b)." Subdivision (b) of Evidence Code section 915 provides in pertinent part: "When a court is ruling on a claim of privilege ... and is unable to do so without requiring disclosure of the information claimed to be privileged, the court may require the person from whom disclosure is sought or the person authorized to claim the privilege, or both, to disclose the information in chambers out of the presence and hearing of all persons except the person authorized to claim the privilege and such other persons as the person authorized to claim the privilege is willing to have present." Petitioners, the "persons authorized to claim the privilege," were, for obvious reasons, unwilling to have the District Attorney present.

10 People v. Clark (1990) 50 Cal.3d 583, 619-620, 268 Cal.Rptr. 399, 789 P.2d 127.