in the public domain during the pendency of the case by virtue of a civil lawsuit filed by the executor of the victim’s estate. Heemstra, 721 N.W.2d at 563. This factor tended to diminish the need to protect the confidential interests of the particular patient. Finally, the nature of the confidential information was such that it could reasonably be viewed as an aid to the defendant in his self-defense claim. Id. This factor was considered to be the most important criteria in the ease because it not only placed the constitutional right to a fair trial into play, but it identified the specific need for the information and the particular prejudice that would be suffered by the accused without the information. See United States v. Alperin, 128 F.Supp.2d 1251, 1255 (N.D.Cal.2001) (<HOLDING>). The factors we identified in Heemstra were
recognizing a broader ethical duty of confidentiality recognizing strong public interest in maintaining confidentiality of official records concerning child abuse recognizing records material to selfdefense claim outweigh victims interest in confidentiality recognizing a corporations legal rights to confidentiality and privilege recognizing employers interest in protecting confidentiality of data bearing on employees basic competence