Cf. United States v. Harris, 223 Fed.Appx. 747, 751-52 (10th Cir.2007) (unpublished) (affirming district court’s rejection of magistrate judge’s report and recommendation suggesting disclosure of confidential informant’s identity when confidential informant was not involved in drug buy). Moreover, an in camera procedure may be the fairest approach when the Court faces a dichotomous dilemma; that dilemma being, either deny disclosure, which may render the plaintiff virtually unable to pursue his or her cause of action, or conversely, grant disclosure, which may result in harm to the confidential informant or subsequent difficulty for a governmental entity to recruit citizens to act as confidential informants. See Rodriguez v. City of Springfield, 127 F.R.D. 426, 431 (D.Mass.1989) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, when a plaintiffs cause of action
holding that where a party claims a document is privileged and the trial court fails to conduct an in camera review or balancing test the trial court has departed from the essential requirements of the law holding that court should balance competing interests recognizing that while an in camera hearing has its deficiencies both for the defendant and the plaintiff it offers itself as the fairest and most expeditious method for balancing the parties competing interests recognizing that competing interests of parents children and the state requires additional analysis holding that the proper test for balancing national security interests with a persons due process rights is the mathews balancing test