dissenting.

Pursuant to this Court’s order, this case has been fully briefed and argued before the Court. Accordingly, I dissent from the majority’s refusal on this record to assume plenary jurisdiction and reach the merits in this case, which involves the validity of a subpoena seeking all materials concerning conversations between petitioner, a sexual assault counselor as defined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5945.1, and the eight-year-old victim of the alleged offense. See generally Matter of Pittsburgh Action Against Rape, 494 Pa. 15, 428 A.2d 126 (1981).

dissents from the majority’s position that the merits must await a contempt proceeding and would reach the merits of this case in the present proceedings.

*240ORDER

Application denied without prejudice.