context: Given the importance of protecting the interests of both parties, courts often have followed an in camera procedure for disclosing the identity of and requesting information from a confidential informant.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 223 Fed.Appx. 747, 751-52
citation_a.parenthetical: 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
citation_a.sentence: 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 United States v. Harris, 223 Fed.Appx. 747, 751-52 (10th Cir.2007) (unpublished) (affirming district court’s rejection of magistrate judge’s report and recommendation suggesting disclosure of confidential informant’s identity when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).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 908 F.2d 565, 569
citation_b.parenthetical: remanding case to the "district court to hold in camera hearings to determine whether the informant's testimony is relevant and whether disclosure is warranted"
citation_b.sentence: See 3 WeiNStein’s FedeRal Evidenoe § 510.07 (2d ed.2011); see also United States v. Moralez, 908 F.2d 565, 569 (10th Cir.1990) (remanding case to the “district court to hold in camera hearings to determine whether the informant’s testimony is relevant and whether disclosure is warranted”). This procedure preserves the anonymity of the confidential informant while ensuring that the opposing party has access to the testimony of the informant in order to properly vet his or her claims.