In In re Olson (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 783, two inmates filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the superior court, seeking inspection of their prison files to determine whether the parole authority abused its discretion in denying them parole. (Olson, supra, at pp. 784-785.) The parties agreed that the parole authority had the right to withhold confidential documents that could create a danger to inmate or institutional security if disclosed, but disagreed which party had the burden of proof. The court of appeal recognized that, under the rationale of Prewitt, an inmate had "a due process right to see the documents in the parole authority's possession." (Id. at p. 790.) The court also recognized that the state had a valid interest "to keep confidential such records in an inmate's file which will create a danger to the security of individuals or the institution." (Id. at p. 788.) Applying the procedural considerations in Prewitt to strike a balance between "the state's interest in maintaining confidentiality" and "the inmate's interest in obtaining liberty," the court concluded the burden was on the state "to show that it is necessary to maintain the confidentiality of a document, rather than on an inmate to prove its relevancy and need in a habeas corpus proceeding." (Id. at pp. 789-790.) In Olson, the court of appeal also proposed procedures for determining the scope of information to be disclosed to an inmate during the parole-granting process. The court stated: "Since the Department of Corrections and its component agencies are under the obligation, in the first instance, to disclose to an inmate or his attorney all documents in the files pertaining to him upon request, such documents shall be made available to the inmate or his attorney upon receipt of such request. If, in the judgment of the Department, the security of the institution will be jeopardized or an informant will be exposed to an undue risk of harm by the disclosure of a particular document, the Department may refuse to make available to the inmate or his attorney any document deemed to have such potentiality provided, that in conjunction with the refusal, the Department make known to the inmate or his attorney the general nature of the document withheld and the reason for nondisclosure. If the inmate disagrees with the Department's justification for withholding the document from his perusal, or the propriety of the Department's determination, review thereof can be had through a habeas corpus petition filed by the inmate. Upon the presentation of such petition to the court, and upon its request, the document in question shall be forwarded to the court for its private perusal for the sole purpose of determining whether it is clothed with the indicia of confidentiality justifying nondisclosure." (Olson, supra, 37 Cal.App.3d at pp. 790-791.)