We address the matter nevertheless because of the possibility that the issue will arise again, and because of the practical difficulty of obtaining meaningful pretrial review. SRS contends that the order improperly relieves defendants of their obligation to make a threshold showing that information in confidential records is favorable and material to the defense. It also argues that public policy favors free and open reporting of suspected child abuse, which would be jeopardized by releasing SRS materials not directly related to the criminal investigation. The claims are unfounded. We see no indication that the statute applies only to those records pertaining to a specific criminal investigation.
Withheld information is also subject to a second level of review by the trial court in camera.
Hence, the fear of wholesale disclosure of immaterial confidential information is unfounded. We hold, in sum, that insofar as the court's ruling applied to the criminal cases before it at the time, the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the disclosure procedure. That portion of the order purporting to apply its terms to future cases is reversed. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.