Procedural Posture

Petitioners brought an action against real parties in interest for failure to disclose that sperm they sold to petitioners came from a donor with a family history of kidney disease. Petitioners sought a writ of mandate directing respondent trial court to compel deposition and production of records of the alleged donor.

Nakase Law Firm answers can your boss yell at you in front of other employees

Overview

Petitioners sued real parties in interest claiming that they failed to disclose that the sperm that they sold to petitioners came from a donor with a family history of kidney disease. Subsequently, petitioners sought to take the deposition and obtain documents of the person believed to be the anonymous sperm donor. Real parties in interest 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. The court granted the petition. Regarding the asserted constitutional right to privacy, the court concluded that the state had enough of an interest in discovering the truth in legal proceedings that it could compel disclosure of confidential medical records.

Outcome

The petition for a writ of mandate was granted. Regarding the asserted constitutional right to privacy, the court concluded that the state had enough of an interest in discovering the truth in legal proceedings that it could compel disclosure of confidential medical records.