JOHNSON V. SUPERIOR COURT
80 Cal.App. 4th 1050 (2000)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Johnson (Ps) seek a writ of mandate directing the superior court to
vacate its order and issue a different order compelling John Doe's deposition and the
production of records.
FACTS: Ps sued Cryobank (D) for professional negligence, fraud, and breach of contract.
Ds sold Ps frozen sperm specimens donated by Donor No. 276. Ps signed D's form agreement
that provided, in relevant part, that 'Cryobank shall destroy all information and records
which they may have as to the identity of said donor, it being the intention of all parties
that the identity of said donor shall be and forever remain anonymous.' D assured Ps that
the anonymous sperm donor had been fully tested and genetically screened. Brittany was born
on April 18, 1989. In May 1995, Ps were informed that Brittany was positively diagnosed with
ADPKD. It was Donor No. 276 who genetically transmitted ADPKD to Brittany. D learned that
the donor's mother and his mother's sister both suffered from kidney disease and
hypertension, and the donor's mother suffered a 30 percent hearing loss before the age of
60. The presence of multiple instances of kidney disease coupled with hypertension and
neurological disorders, such as deafness, are red flag indicators of the presence of ADPKD
in Donor No. 276's family, and thus, Ds knew that Donor No. 276's sperm could be at risk of
genetically transferring kidney disease. Ps allege that D falsely represented to Ps that the
sperm they were purchasing was tested and screened for infectious and genetically
transferable diseases and safe to effectuate their pregnancy. Ps propounded discovery to D
seeking information regarding Donor No. 276, including his name, address, and medical
history. D objected to providing any information regarding Donor No. 276, claiming the
donor's right to privacy and his physician-patient privilege. Donor No. 276 had sold 320
deposits of his semen to D and had received a total of $11,200 for his sperm. Ps argued that
they were entitled to have all of Donor No. 276's medical information in D's possession and
disclosure of Donor No. 276's identity so that they could question him directly because the
information (1) was relevant to the issues in the litigation, and (2) was necessary 'as a
predictor of the medical fate of Brittany' and is 'one of the most reliable indicators of
Brittany's future.' The trial court granted Ps' motions and D filed a petition for writ of
mandate. It was denied and Ds then petitioned the Supreme Court for review. The Supreme
Court granted review and transferred the matter with directions to vacate the order denying
mandate and issue an order directing the trial court to show cause why relief should not be
granted. The appeals court issued an alternative writ of mandate. The trial court responded
in August 1997 by vacating its order granting Ds' motion. Ps then located real party John
Doe, who they believe is Donor No. 276. Ps served him with deposition and trial subpoenas in
September 1998. Eventually Ps moved to compel that John Doe comply with the subpoena to
attend his deposition and produce the requested documents. On November 2, 1999, the trial
court denied Ps'' motion. This petition followed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment