NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
PER CURIAM.
Defendant D.E. has been indicted and charged with the sexual assault of several children. In this interlocutory appeal, defendant seeks reversal of an order that denied his request for an in camera review of school records and the Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit's (IAIU) file of a child who is not a named victim in the indictment. We affirm for the reasons that follow.
While defendant was employed as a teacher at an elementary school, several students alleged incidents of inappropriate touching and comments. Following an investigation, defendant was charged with: sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(b); endangering the welfare of a child, N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a); and related offenses.
Defendant requested an in camera review of the IAIU investigation file and the school records pertaining to the case, which was granted, and redacted records were issued to the parties in August 2012. After reviewing the redacted files, a second request was submitted by defendant for an in camera review of the same files, which resulted in additional information being released to him.
Following a dismissal of the original indictment, a superseding indictment was returned with similar charges, and the addition of two victims. Defendant made a subsequent request for an in camera review of (1) the IAIU file pertaining to the additional victims named in the superseding indictment, and (2) the school records pertinent to any accusations made by the new victims. As a result, additional redacted records were released. Defendant's motion to dismiss several counts of the indictment was denied. We affirmed. State v. D.E., No. A-5053-13 (App. Div. Dec. 9, 2014).
The subject of this appeal arises from the denial of defendant's request for an in camera review of the school records and IAIU file of N.Q., a child not named in the indictment as a victim. In a written opinion dated October 5, 2015, the motion judge noted the applicable statutes, regulation and case law, and found that defendant had not offered "a reasonable basis for requesting [the school records as the child was] not a named victim in the present indictment." He further determined that defendant had failed to demonstrate "how the records of [the child] would be material to his case" and concluded that because the request was for "information ... not essential to the resolution of an issue before the [c]ourt." As such the motion judge denied the review of both the school files and IAIU records. We granted leave to appeal the interlocutory order.
We review the denial of defendant's application under an abuse of discretion standard. See State v. Williams, 239 N.J.Super. 620, 626 (App. Div. 1990). Although it is well recognized that "[i]n general, a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to broad discovery," State v. Scoles, 214 N.J. 236, 252 (2013) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. D.R.H., 127 N.J. 249, 256 (1992)), we are also mindful that "a strong interest in protecting the confidentiality of juvenile records" prevails. State v. Van Dyke, 361 N.J.Super. 403, 411 (App. Div.) (citing State v. Allen, 70 N.J. 474, 479-482 (1976)), certif. denied, 178 N.J. 35 (2003).
In addressing the school records, we note that "[a] child's school records are confidential, and access to their contents is limited." State v. Krivacska, 341 N.J.Super. 1, 35 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 206 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1012, 122 S.Ct. 1594, 152 L. Ed. 2d 510 (2002). In balancing a defendant's rights against a student's confidentiality interests, we have held that a defendant's right of confrontation triggers a compulsory need for disclosure of such information that may trump a child's right of privacy "upon a showing of particularized need." Van Dyke, supra, 361 N.J. Super. at 412. In such a situation,
The party seeking an in camera inspection must advance some factual predicate which would make it reasonably likely that the file will bear such fruit and that the quest for its contents is not merely a desperate grasping at a straw.
[State v. Harris, 316 N.J.Super. 384, 398 (App. Div. 1998) (internal citation omitted).]
We find that defendant has failed to provide the required factual predicate to justify an in camera review of a child's records who is not named in the indictment as a victim. Other than a generalized argument that the records may "shed some light on the allegations against him," defendant does not articulate any particularized need for the review of school records pertaining to this child.
As to the IAIU file, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10a(b)(6), records reporting child abuse shall be released to:
A court or the Office of Administrative Law, upon its finding that access to such records may be necessary for determination of an issue before it, and such records may be disclosed by the court or the Office of Administrative Law in whole or in part to the law guardian, attorney, or other appropriate person upon a finding that such further disclosure is necessary for determination of an issue before the court or the Office of Administrative Law.
[N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10a(b)(6) (emphasis added).]
Restricting the availability of these records encourages "the reporting of child abuse." N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. T.H., 386 N.J.Super. 271, 276 (Ch. Div. 2006). Defendant again only proffers the same argument for these records; the file may contain some information helpful to his defense. We find that the disclosure of this file without a particularized need would undermine the State's compelling interest in protecting child abuse victims.
We therefore find that the motion judge's decision to deny a review of the records pertaining to a child not named in the indictment or as a victim in this case was justified by the lack of a factual predicate or showing of a particularized need.
Affirmed.
