Johnson v. Superior Court - 80 Cal. App. 4th 1050, 95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 864 (2000)

Rule:

Pertaining to the constitutional right to privacy, where the information sought via discovery is essential to the fair resolution of the lawsuit, a trial court may properly compel such disclosure.

Facts:

Parents and their child brought an action for professional negligence, fraud, and breach of contract against a sperm bank, its employees, officers, and directors, alleging the transmission of a serious kidney disease to the child from the sperm donor. Subsequently, petitioners sought to take the deposition and obtain documents of the person believed to be the anonymous sperm donor. Defendants filed motions to quash the deposition subpoena and petitioners filed a motion to compel compliance with the deposition subpoena. Respondent trial court denied petitioners' motion and granted the motions to quash. Petitioners sought a writ of mandate directing respondent trial court to vacate its order and to compel compliance with the deposition subpoena.

Issue:

May the parents and their child, conceived by the sperm of an anonymous sperm donor, compel the donor's deposition and production of documents in order to discover information relevant to their action against the sperm bank?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court of Appeal ordered issuance of a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order denying plaintiffs' motion and to grant the motion to compel the donor's deposition and to order production of records. The court held that the physician-patient privilege was not applicable, since the evidence revealed that the donor visited the sperm bank for the sole purpose of selling his sperm, and not for diagnosis or treatment of a physical or mental ailment. The court held that the contract between the parents and the sperm bank precluding disclosure of the donor's identity was unenforceable as contrary to public policy as expressed in Fam. Code, § 7613, which provides that inspection of insemination records, including a donor's identity and related information, may be disclosed under certain circumstances, and was contrary to the state's compelling interest in the health and welfare of children, including those conceived by artificial insemination. The court held that although the donor had a right of privacy in his medical history and identity, that right did not preclude the deposition and production of records sought by plaintiffs. However, the donor's identity was to be protected to the fullest extent possible and the identities of his family members were not to be disclosed.