Court Opinion

ID: 9483371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:18:48.81036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:35.499649
License: Public Domain

RUSSELL, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I am convinced that the public interest in maintaining a safe and adequate blood supply and the privacy interest of the blood donor outweigh the plaintiff’s interest in deposing the donor in this case. Even the restricted discovery permitted by this Court does not adequately protect these important interests.
Initially, I disagree with the Court’s minimization of the interests asserted by the Red Cross. I would adopt the reasoning of the several federal and state courts that have protected the identity of HIV-infected blood donors from discovery, even by the court for the purpose of taking “veiled” depositions. These courts have recognized “that the prospect of inquiry into one’s personal life, medical history, and potential association with infectious diseases such as AIDS is the kind of disincentive that could have a serious [adverse] impact on the nation’s supply of voluntary blood.” Doe v. American Red Cross Blood Services, 125 F.R.D. 646, 653 (D.S.C.1989); accord Bradway v. American National Red Cross, 132 F.R.D. 78, 80 (N.D.Ga.1990); Coleman v. American Red Cross, 130 F.R.D. 360, 362 *493(E.D.Mich.1990); Rasmussen v. South Florida Blood Service, 500 So.2d 533, 538 (Fla.1987); Laburre v. East Jefferson General Hospital, 555 So.2d 1381, 1384-85 (La.1990). Unlike the district court and the majority in this case, these courts do not require “hard statistical data” to substantiate the claim of a diminished blood supply before weighing such claim in the balance of interests. See ante, at 485. Such data, it seems, would only be available by actually subjecting donors to a threat of litigation and then documenting the effect on the blood supply. The potential cost is not worth the certainty in knowledge. We can rely on common sense notions of human behavior to conclude that the Red Cross’s logical claim in this regard deserves substantial consideration.
I also disagree that the Court’s decision adequately protects the implicated donor’s privacy interests. The donor’s identity and medical condition will be revealed involuntarily to several people, including the judge, the judge’s staff, the attorney appointed to represent the donor’s interests, and that attorney’s staff. During the course of the litigation, the donor will receive correspondence and/or telephone calls regarding the litigation, will likely have to meet with the attorney appointed to represent the donor’s interests, and will have to take time to respond to Watson’s written questions. Such involvement will not escape notice by family, roommates, intimate acquaintances, and possibly even employers, and will risk further exposure of the donor’s personal medical information. The only certain protection of the donor’s privacy interests comes through an absolute prohibition on discovery of the donor’s identity.
Finally, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Watson’s interest in discovery outweighs society’s interest in a safe and adequate blood supply and the donor’s privacy interests in this case. Watson already has adequate information to proceed with her suit. The Red Cross provided a copy of the screening questionnaire completed by the donor, as well as other relevant donor information known to the Red Cross. In addition, Watson was permitted to depose the nurses involved in taking the donor’s blood. The incremental information Watson might discover from deposing the donor is simply not worth placing the nation’s blood supply at risk or offending constitutional privacy protections. Under these facts, the interests asserted by the Red Cross far outweigh Watson’s need to depose the donor.
The majority opinion notes that new blood testing procedures were implemented in 1985, which, because of their accuracy, should significantly reduce the number of blood transfusion HIV suits. Ante, at 486, n. 6. Thus, future donors should have little fear of involvement in litigation. However, it seems that as science advances, so do diseases, ensuring a constant supply of blood transfusion cases. A few doctors have recently reported cases of an AIDS-like disease in patients who test negative for the two known HIV viruses. It is not yet known if the disease can be transferred through blood transfusions. Donald G. McNeil, Jr., Once Again, the Disease Confounds Science, N.Y. Times, July 26, 1992, Section 4, at 2 (national ed.). If so, we may again see an increase in blood transfusion litigation.
For these reasons, I do not join the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, I would not affirm the district court’s order compelling discovery.