STATE v. OAKLEY (2025)

Writ granted; relief granted in part, denied in part. To the extent that the district court ordered the disclosure of the name of the victim's therapist to the defendant, the ruling is vacated. Instead, the state is ordered to disclose to the district court in a document under seal the name of the victim's therapist so that the district court may issue a subpoena duces tecum for the victim's therapy records. The district court's ruling is affirmed to the extent that it ordered that the subpoenaed therapy records be returned and made available only to the state, for the purpose of a review for Brady material, and to the district court, for the purpose of performing an in camera inspection to determine whether any disclosure to the defendant is warranted. All documents received are to remain confidential and held under seal unless otherwise ordered by the district court following the in camera review. In all other respects, the district court's ruling is affirmed, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REMANDED

PER CURIAM