ORDER

GEORGE FOLEY, Jr., Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Exhibit Documents Under Seal (#204), filed on January 22, 2016.

Generally, in camera review is not appropriate merely because a party requests the court to undertake the endeavor. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 571 (1989). A court may utilize its discretion and determine whether in camera review is appropriate when the party moving for such review provides a sufficient evidentiary showing that an issue exists regarding the application of a privilege. Id. At 571-72. Further, in camera review "is appropriate only after the burdened party has submitted detailed affidavits and other evidence to the extent possible." Diamond State Ins. Co. v. Rebel Oil Co., 157 F.R.D. 691, 700 (D.Nev. 1994) (citing Weiner v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 943 P.2d 972, 979 (9th Cir. 1991)). Defendant represents that the documents she intends on attaching as exhibits to her Response (#203) to the Government's Motion to Unseal Defendant's Financial Affidavit (#166) contain confidential information regarding Defendant's financial affidavit that should not be disclosed to the Government. However, Defendant has failed to provide the Court with sufficient information as to what these documents are and why they require confidentiality in order to justify her request. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Exhibit Documents Under Seal (#204) is denied without prejudice. Without disclosing the actual contents of the documents, Defendant may refile her motion wherein she shall provide the Court with a more complete description of why these documents should be filed under seal or in camera.