No, and the plea deal is the primary reason why.
Confidential informant identities are protected by law precisely because exposing them creates serious safety risks. The government has a strong interest in maintaining that protection, and courts consistently uphold it. Even in cases that go to trial, revealing a CI's identity requires meeting a high legal threshold and is far from automatic.
When your son accepted the plea deal, he waived his right to confront witnesses against him, which is the constitutional mechanism that sometimes compels CI disclosure in a trial setting. By pleading out, that avenue closed. There is no post-conviction discovery process that opens CI information back up after a guilty plea has been entered and accepted by the court.
There is also something worth considering about the CI itself. Prosecutors are skilled at leveraging the existence of a confidential informant as leverage in plea negotiations, and in some cases the CI is exaggerated or the evidence they provided is thinner than implied. The threat of a CI going to trial sometimes produces a plea even when the actual case might have been weaker than it appeared. Whether that happened here is impossible to know from the outside, but it is a known prosecutorial tactic.
At this point the plea is entered and the sentence is imposed. The energy is better spent on what happens inside. With a 10-year sentence for trafficking and promoting contraband, understanding whether parole is written into the commitment order and what programming is available to build the strongest possible parole case is where the focus should go now.