The motion of the United States to modify our order of January 29, 1968, 390 U.S. 136 , is restored to the calendar for reargument at the 1968 Term. Counsel are requested to include among the issues to be discussed in briefs and oral arguments the following:
(1) Should the records of the electronic surveillance of petitioner Alderisio's place of business be subjected to in camera inspection by the trial judge to determine the necessity of compelling the Government to make disclosure of such records to petitioners, and if so to what extent?
(2) If in camera inspection is authorized or ordered, by what standards (for example, relevance and considera- [392 U.S. 919 , 920] tions of injury to persons or to reputations) should the trial judge determine whether the records are to be turned over to petitioners?
(3) What standards are to be applied in determining whether each petitioner has standing to object to the use against him of the information obtained from the electronic surveillance of petitioner Alderisio's place of business? More specifically, does petitioner Alderisio have standing to object to the use of any or all information obtained from such electronic surveillance whether or not he was present on the premises or party to a particular overheard conversation? Also, does petitioner Alderman have standing to object to the use against him of any or all information obtained from the electronic surveillance of petitioner Alderisio's business establishment?
Mr. Justice MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of this order.