*1 warrant. tel room and issued the search magistrate to the
The affidavit submitted
fully supports this conclusion. proba magistrate’s determination of cause in this case is also consistent with
ble holding
this court’s v. United States (4th Cir.1988),
Anderson,
cert. 488 U.S. 109 S.Ct. Anderson, (1989).
court found though weapons
search a trailer for even did not contain facts affidavit place weapons located at the to be were here. The
searched. The same is true magis
totality presented to the of facts
trate sufficient to establish fair were
probability drug paraphernalia room at the States
be found Williams’ Lodge.
man Motor
III.
Because the affidavit submitted
magistrate contained sufficient facts to es- cause, probable the search of
tablish room and the
Williams’ motel was valid a result of that search
items seized as Therefore, suppressed. not
should granting the district court
order of suppress motion to
defendant’s
REVERSED. WATSON,
Cynthia Plaintiff-Appellee, E. CROSS, RED
LOWCOUNTRY
Defendant-Appellant, University
Medical of South
Carolina, Defendant.
No. 91-2053. Appeals,
United States Court
Fourth Circuit.
Argued 1991. June Aug.
Decided 1992.
As Amended Nov. *2 O’Brian, Phillips Porter,
Fern Arnold & D.C., (Bruce Washington, argued M. Chad- wick, Johnson, Barry L. Kathleen A. Be- han, Porter, Washington, D.C., Arnold & Stephen Morrison, Andrews, G. M. Stuart Jr., Nelson, Mullins, Riley Scarborough, & Columbia, S.C., Wolf, L. Edward Associate Counsel, Cross, General American Red D.C., Washington, brief), for defendant- appellant. Moss, Dore, McIntyre,
Bernard Kuhn & P.A., Beaufort, McIntyre, S.C., argued, for plaintiff-appellee. RUSSELL, WIDENER,
Before HALL, Judges. Circuit OPINION HALL, Judge: K.K. Circuit The American National Red Cross Blood Services, Lowcountry Region Carolina (“Red Cross”) brings interlocutory ap- this 1292(b) peal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § complain about the district court’s order granting plaintiff Cynthia motion Watson’s discovery concerning compel certain blood donor. We affirm.
I. 10, 1985, Cynthia Watson gave premature birth to twins Charles- Trevor, ton, one of the Carolina. South babies, transfu- received a number of blood April, In he through sions HIV, positive and he later devel- tested in 1988. oped AIDS. He died Cynthia appointed adminis- Watson was December, tratrix of Trevor’s estate. wrongful death action she filed this hospital against and the Trevor received the blood transfu- following hospital sions his birth.1 appeal, argument initially was heard on this filed in state court in after 1. The action placed abeyance pending the Su- was removed to federal case was preme South Carolina. It January issue of the Court’s the Red Cross. On resolution court lawyer vulged the court and that a supplied by the used blood represent the donor’s inter- appointed to to determine that was able the Red Cross also re- lawyer’s name would whose blood was ests. only six donors one of the confidential, known to the court. main have been in these transfusions used *3 permitted proposed to file would be was donated. Watson HIV-positive when the blood interrogatories3 to which the Red Cross this un- sought to discover from Watson approved questions object. The could “implicated donor” identified given lawyer the donor’s would then be and about the dona- background his client, and the answers theory liability to forward to his process itself. One tion redacted) (with the donor’s verification screening process to which the is that the parties. then be delivered to the subjected was inade- would implicated was out negligently carried quately and objections filed The Red Cross donor station. employees at the report, argument was held before the and accepted court already taken district court. The district discovery has Extensive recommendations, February, in the nurses on the in this case. Both of place interrogatories ap- day in a set of was center on the duty at the donation interrogatories proved. Essentially, these deposed.2 surpris- Not been into the donor’s blood-donation histo- remember the delve ingly, neither was able to emphasis donor, ry, particular on the Febru- they screened whom interrogato- ary of the The Red Cross 27 donation. Some years earlier. some five inquire aspects into limited many non- ries some provided Watson with has also personal history. The district donor’s pieces of information about identifying granted motion for a donor, copy court the Red Cross’s including a redacted permission for completed by stay him and certification questionnaire screening interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 persisted, take an February 1985. Watson on 1292(b). panel A of this court however, request identity of U.S.C. in her § appeal. granted leave to file the or, alternatively, opportu- for the the donor through court-ap- a question him nity to intermediary. The Red Cross
pointed II. order, and the mat- protective moved well-defined, are The issues before us magistrate judge. ter referred to arguments each side have been and the a score of courts and ana- recognized that honed before magistrate articles. Yet lyzed in numerous law review discovery the donor is crucial some unable to reach at least the courts have been against Watson’s case any major issues in- consensus on negligence rest on as the claims of insofar in actions. As formulated on volved such particular donor was screened how this court, “controlling precise magistrate the district dis day question. question of law” certified for our review factually the Red unfounded missed as discovery anony- direct from an of the do “whether that the invasion Cross’s claims pro- blood donor should be seriously jeopardize mous volunteer privacy would nor’s Proce- under Federal Rules of Civil supply. It was recom hibited the nation’s blood 26(c), the Constitutions of identity di- dure and/or mended that sake, clarity’s ruary we will refer original jurisdiction 1985. For over cases to federal court’s party. The Court has Cross is a 27 as the donation date. We do not which the Red recently Red Cross charter confers dispute held that the position factual intend to take a jurisdiction. National Red Cross American actual date of donation. about the — -, S.G., 112 S.Ct. v. U.S. (1992). holding this case The order L.Ed.2d 201 “interrogatories” are directed 3. Because these abeyance vacated. is therefore they properly non-party, more character “depositions upon questions," written ized as is still a matter of of the donation 2. The date Belle Mem. Blood Fed.R.Civ.P. 31. See dispute. card carries a Feb- some ruary The donation Bonfils Court, date, 763 P.2d 1013-14 Ctr. v. District hospital while the rules). (Col. 1988) (construing analogous state inventory a donation date of Feb- record shows States pects United and the State of South Car- of the lower court’s order as findings University fact, olina.” Watson Medical law, conclusions of mixed fact-law Carolina, (D.S.C. C/A 88-2844-18 South rulings, or exercises of discretion. 25,1991). broad, Although Feb. couched in B. terms, general the issues before us meaningfully analyzed by refer- The Red Cross contends that Wat particular ence son’s scheme interest the discovery approved by protective embodied in the order.4 the court is outweighed by two countervail ing interests: the nation’s interest in a safe
A. adequate impli begin by setting We perti forth the cated donor’s privacy interests. We turn legal pro nent standards under which the first to proposed how the discovery pur *4 First, tective order should ported reviewed. pose to a danger to adequacy of the district subject court is to the broad the nation’s blood supply. 26(b) admonitions of Fed.R.Civ.P. in fash The Red argument Cross’s is that allow- ioning discovery All non-privileged orders. ing plaintiffs to “enmesh” blood donors in information that is either admissible at trial tort actions of this inevitably kind will re- “appears reasonably or that calculated to in persons sult fewer willing to donate
lead to discovery of admissible evi blood. As more cases of this type are dence” should be discoverable. Fed. publicized, potential donors will decide that 26(b)(1). However, protection R.Civ.P. becoming the risk of involved in litigation, granted any person to from whom dis with the possibility personal that their lives covery sought is prevent “annoyance, public, will be made outweighs the benefits embarrassment, oppression, or undue bur donating of their Although blood. the Red expense.” 26(c). or den Fed.R.Civ.P. On currently Cross promises that the donors’ appeal, Red Cross asserts confidential, records remain will prom- standard of review be de should novo ises may not be able to be made if donor legal its “claims of put errors.” What are discovery permitted is in a sufficiently errors,” “legal however, as forth are more large number of cases like the instant one. accurately characterized as matters involv donors, course, Fewer of means less blood. ing fact-finding either or an exercise of Notwithstanding the Red Cross’s re- by the discretion district court. The Red peated contrary, however, assertions to the attempt stark, paint this Cross’s case the district court did not rule that Watson’s urgent colors is unsuccessful. interest in the contested out- We will follow the standards established weighed public maintaining interest in review. of adequate an supply healthy of volunteer If the claim is of in underlying error Rather, blood. the court ruled that “there factfindings which infected the ultimate tangible is not one shred of evidence in the decision, proceed review must under the nature of hard statistical data to substanti- clearly standard; erroneous if of error of speculative ate an otherwise claim that the infecting decision, law the ultimate under supply jeopardized.” blood will be Watson the de novo review Only standard. if Carolina, v. Medical University South goes the claim of exclusively error (D.S.C. 7, 1991) No. C/A 88-2844-18 Feb. impropriety of an ultimate exercise of (order). appeal, the Red Cross at- available solely discretion is review un- tempts impact to deflect the ruling of this der the abuse of discretion standard. by pointing to a of eases in number which United Food & Commercial discovery requests Workers v. courts have denied from Co., (4th Poultry See, Marval F.2d similarly implicated e.g., donors. Ras- Cir.1989). throughout Service, threshold task mussen v. South Blood Florida properly categorize (Fla.1987) (“[Tjhere is the various as- 500 So.2d is protective (D.S.C. 1991), The court’s reproduced order in Watson v. 88-2844-18 Feb. is Carolina, University Appendix opinion. Medical South No. in the C/A this supposes.” Dr. Cannon impact that major into inquiry prospect little doubt stating that concluded Eisenmann Dr. association potential life private one’s salutary be a would on donors effect blood donation... deter will with AIDS safety of the blood because one Cross, 130 Red American Coleman potential if donors be enhanced might well (“There is (E.D.Mich.1990) 360, 362 F.R.D. discouraged were for HIV high risk disclosure court ordered no enmeshing donating of fear out impact on volunteer a serious litigation. themselves cases, donations.”). In none of these any sta- however, any mention of there is ex- sum, courts and opinions of underpinning for empirical tistical district court’s ways.5 The go perts both on the effect concerns stated upon predicate factual rejected the ruling supply. balancing test Cross’s implicated do- i.e., premised, access offered course, Of dangerous depletion lead to nors would field. expert in the testimony anof opinion many supply because the blood however, opinions Dr. Cannon’s Again, fear to donate out of decline donors prof- His conclusory terms. couched litigation.6 in similar involved becoming donors de- like this: goes syllogism fered finding of fact say that cannot We confidentiality; “do- anonymity and sire *5 decided, we Having so clearly erroneous. likely to donate much less be nors would plaintiff the interest need not balance risk, how- was a knew there they if the and nation.7 identities, medical small, their that ever revealed might be histories, and test result therefore, blood;” C. recipients
to the low dangerously drop to supplies argument makes a related The Red Cross the identi- fact that from the Aside levels. sup- on the blood the effect is not in this case donor implicated ty of the part in screening depends large ply. Donor protec- the under to Watson to be revealed history health receiving an accurate grounded opinion order, expert is the tive high-risk in that order from each logical seemingly a nothing more than upon raises Red Cross The persons excluded. be Moreover, Dr. behavior. theory of human their lying about of donors specter the by directly countered opinion is Cannon’s per- they in that be order health histories Eisenmann, president expert, Dr. Watson’s course, Lying, of blood. mitted to donate Improvement of Vol- of the Association litigation from insulate them will neither Blood Donation. unteer their them well for should nor will bode in the transmission implicated district donations the affidavit filed an person that a strikes us It “granting of disease. court, stated that Eisenmann Dr. a so that or more willing an hour spend to to the request access plaintiffs’ and in or her vein placed his needle can captioned above implicated donor in is not the sort extracted pint of blood unlikely to have extremely is matter privilege of lie for person who would availability of on the effect measurable in involvement potential for doing so.8 The transfusion, certainly not the and blood for test. See Ras- approved Litiga- the first Note, tration AIDS See Transfusion-Related So.2d, mussen, n. 10. 537 500 Discovery Blood Permitting Limited tion: Cases, L.Rev. Single 76 Cornell Donor in Donors seeing a stake also has 7. The nation thorough up-to-date com- (1991), and 927 fully compensated negligence are victims of subject. articles on pilation the cases Bonfils, party. 763 responsible Belle See P.2d, at 1012. testing for advances in that scientific 6. We note voluntary reasoning applies to do- antibody serve 8. This should presence of the HIV have different incentives strongly suspect “donors" of donation- nors. Paid give significantly number reduce blood, their Only and we after weeks in the future. cases related screening governed primar- implicat- level of candor the transfusion Trevor received price. going blood, ily Drug Adminis- Food and ed donor's
487
litigation
by giving
will not be lessened
tion
employee’s
that an
records,
medical
during
false
screening;
any-
answers
if
may
contain intimate
per
facts of a
thing,
nature,
such a lack of candor
well exon-
sonal
are well within the ambit of
center,
erate the donation
while at
personal materials entitled to privacy pro
shifting
same time
liability
tection.”).
the focus of
stigma
attached to AIDS
the donor where none
otherwise
lends even
weight
more
argument
short,
have existed. In
the asserted fear is
the medical records of its victims
illogical.
should
scrupulously
receive
confidential
treatment.
White,
See Woods v.
III.
F.Supp.
(W.D.Wis.1988),
mem.,
aff'd
(7th
Cir.1990) (disclosure
F.2d 17
The Red Cross also assails the district
state
employees
health
per
non-medical
court’s refusal to hold
that the
sonnel
plaintiff-inmate
had
posi
tested
prevent
interests should
tive for AIDS held to state a claim for
identity
even limited disclosure of his
violation of inmate’s
right
constitutional
discovery. The district court believed that
privacy). The Red
arguments
Cross’s
fall
protective
order and
questions
to be
short, however,
they
when
are examined in
propounded
implicate
did not
the donor’s
specific
context of this case.
constitutionally protected privacy rights;
alternatively,
rights
even if such
impli-
are
Supreme
gave
Court
short shrift to a
cated,
rights
outweighed by
argument
similar
Roe,
Whalen v.
competing
plaintiff
interest of the
in ob-
U.S.
97 S.Ct.
(1977).
A. illegally also sold be recorded in a central- *6 computer ized Physicians file. patients accept We the contention that the argued that the statute standing Red Cross has violated their con- to raise the donor’s rights stitutional privacy because, of rights. constitutional Doe v. American among reasons, other Services, possi- there Red Cross Blood existed a 125 F.R.D. bility that the (D.S.C.1989). patients names of difficult, obtaining 650 n. It is how ever, prescriptions might precise pub- to discern the disclosed nature of the licly. The Court found no right that the Red evidence that the seeking pro Cross is to storage collection and of the appears tect. The Red identify Cross to improperly separate aspects by two administered purported right of the either or, the state in the event the would be violated if stored data the were to be used as proceed First, judicial were to evidence in a as ordered. the proceeding, by the possibility Accordingly, of courts. inadvertent disclosure of the potential the public identity donor’s disclosure might grievous cause was held harm to be an Second, insufficient basis finding to the donor. questions ap the rights violation of proved privacy. the of by the district Id. at court would embar 598-602, 97 S.Ct. at implicated rass and 875-878. harass the donor. We approved fail to see how the discovery af possibility The public of disclosure is aspects fects either of privacy of in a even more remote in the case before us. prohibited manner by the federal or South implicated The identity, already donor’s Carolina constitutions. Cross, known to the Red would be revealed danger The public of only disclosure is a red lawyer appoint- the court and to the herring. The Red Cross cites a of slew ed the court. The revelation to the cases for proposition moreover, the court, that there is a is to be made directly to protectable right privacy judge one’s medi- the the Red to be hand See, e.g., cal records. United envelope States v. delivered in an marked “Personal Westinghouse Corp., Elec. 638 F.2d and Confidential.” All answers are to be (3rd Cir.1980)(“There ques- can be no envelope maintained in a sealed marked provided
“Confidential,” the IV. answers signature have the re- by the donor must patently Red Cross makes the disin filing. cannot conceive prior We dacted genuous argument that direct dis donor to maintain the confi- system aof better covery prohibited should be because it will identity. po- dentiality donor’s irrelevant, only generate evi inadmissible rise does not tential disclosure Despite painstak dence. the Red Cross’s rights privacy level of violation ing approved efforts to trivialize the inter donor.9 rogatories, the fact remains that there is only person chance remem one B. day bering details six over aspect purported of a viola- The second years person is ago, and that the donor. posited by the rights tion of help very We cannot but think that questions that the is the questions, asking of because it involves district court will tend to approved by the contact with the donor someone other If the donor. harass and embarrass Cross, may than the Red indeed lead to the followed on prescribed procedures were willing that the testi revelation already has the donor any event, at do fy trial. we not believe similarly voluntarily inti- submitted to a its the district court abused discretion probing interrogation.10 To the mate approving particular questions in its that avoidance of embarrassment extent protective order. in this has a dimension con- constitutional relevancy A attack related on the text, involves the embarrassment questions they largely is that focus on the public follow and humiliation thought processes and motivations. donor is infected. disclosure that the See correctly the rele- Red Cross frames Blood District Belle Mem. Ctr. Bonfils liability being vant issue as whether (Col.1988). Court, 763 P.2d 1012-13 center its prescribed blood donor followed feelings of harass- Embarrassment and procedures screening do- flowing very act answer- ment approved questions nor.12 The can be implicate questions simply not ing the do grouped three general categories: into protectable interest under Constitu- (1) screening Whalen, specific events 429 U.S. tion.11 Cf. *7 16); 5, 9(a), 11, 12, process (questions (disclosure private of medical S.Ct. at 878 employees information to state health not (2) history donor’s of blood dona- the a distinguishable from host “meaningfully 1, 7); (questions tions/deferrals privacy of unpleasant other invasions of (3) thought the donor’s motivations and many with facts of that are associated 2, 3, 4, 6, 9(b processes (questions most, care”). At the invasion the health c), 17); and minimal, privacy and this interest donor’s is (4) (non-donation-re- personal the donor's outweighed plaintiff's greatly is the 18). lated) (questions history information and the related need the seeing injuries only disputes relevancy The the are Red Cross public interest categories.13 of the third fourth We compensated. day question protection state leave another the the constitutional 9. We Const, right court-approved larger privacy, a S.C. art. I embodied in whether disclosure donor’s is broader than the federal constitu- § violate the universe rights. right. tional instance, prospective a 10. For 1985 independent liability, 12. one not An basis screening whether he was asked the nurse or appeal, pre- in this involved whether adequate. (the donor) self-injected she had ever taken procedure scribed itself exposed anyone drugs or been AIDS. brief, Although opening question this includes certified to court 13. In its question among purportedly of South 1 irrelevant includes Carolina, reference Constitution argument Question interrogatories. asks total no 1 about the the Red Cross makes
489 review this relevancy issue of in the con- to defer implicated donor. Whatever text of 26 Fed.R.Civ.P. for abuse of discre- privacy interests that are pro- involved are tion. tected by the district court’s order. The contention that discovery this employed
The benchmark contrib- by the district ute to a decline in the adequacy or requested court is whether the safety of the supply “appears is a reasonably matter of calculated to lead to some dispute, but we discovery say cannot that the admissible evidence.” district 26(e)(1). findings court’s relevancy clearly Fed.R.Civ.P. mat errone- ters, ous. We believe the trial court has ap- broad discretion. limited proved by the district generally See court proceed. Moore’s Federal should Practice ¶ (1989 and Cum.Supp.). 1990-91 26.56[1] AFFIRMED. inquiries into the do APPENDIX'
nor’s reasons donating for not in past and knowledge into his of AIDS-relat IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ed risks does not strike us as irrelevant COURT under Rule “reasonably 26’s calculated” FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAR- n (cid:127)' standard. knowledge OLINA may AIDS-related risks prompt memories CHARLESTON DIVISION having been told of such during risks C/A No. 88-2844-18 prior donation attempt, or he remem receiving ber during prior assurances do Entered 2-7-91 attempt nation that incarceration homo Cynthia Watson, E. as Administratrix of sexuality were disqualifying not circum the Estate Watson, of Trevor J. Likewise, stances. questions about his lev Deceased, Plaintiff, el of education bear on screening process; if obviously illiterate, he was vs. regular process screening should been University Medical of South Carolina and explained orally. An explanation oral Lowcountry Defendants. probably longer have taken than if PROTECTIVE ORDER he were information, able read the and. process duration of the entire might be Pursuant to February Order, its relevant to the of the adequacy of hereby approves Court the following procedures employed February 27. procedure to implemented in conducting findWe no abuse discretion.14 discovery from Donor 58F08540. Within days of the execution of the
CONCLUSION Crier, the defendant American Red Cross shall directly Acceptance of the Red argu- Cross’s *8 to the undersigned Judge, District Court ments would grant amount to a of virtual the name and address of the donor. This blanket from immunity lia- donation-related supplied information will be in a letter bility. plaintiff seeking is information marked “Personal and Confidential” and about events that occurred more than six be directly hand-delivered to the years ago, from only person who judge’s chambers. remember. question There can be no that happened during what the donor screening All information pursuant obtained to this process plaintiff’s is crucial to claim Order be maintained by shall the Clerk of that the negligent was failing Court in envelope a sealed marked “confi- donor; 31, number of donations procedure. this is clear- rules of civil Rule as modified ly may relevant as it inasmuch lead other to protective pursuant order entered pertaining records to the donor. provision 26(c), clearly ample of Rule is author- ity 2, protective for court’s See note order. argues 14. The Red Cross approved also that the supra. method of is not authorized representation and of his
dential nature Court. of this Order na- indicating the confidential and dential” therein, contained ques- proposed ture has submitted Plaintiff contempt the pain of on prohibiting objected. tions, has the defendant to which express without envelope opening questions, those has reviewed This Court Court. this prior approval following ques- that the hereby finds the donor. asked of tions be order, shall, separate in a This Court filed shall the answers be copy of verified donor, plain- at attorney for appoint an and a of Court with the Clerk under seal taxable shall be cost expense, tiff’s the verification answers with copy of the The name date. at a later (if applicable) parties. provided to be redacted shall confiden- maintained attorney shall attorney Upon appointment, name of as the manner tially in the same for the immediately contact the donor shall at- appointed This information. the donor an- obtaining discovery of the purpose of the donor notify immediately torney shall questions. swers to these the confi- representation his or her you donated blood? life your many occasions how On 1. recollection, were your to best February 26 or now Thinking back to a disease sometimes transmit can donated blood time that at you aware in a transfusion? that blood receives patient who recall_ Yes_No_Cannot can sometimes donated blood 1985 that February 26 or on were aware you If spread by blood could you think did which diseases organisms, disease contain transfusion? any of those any you were risk you think did February 26 or a) 4. diseases? recall_ Yes_No_ Cannot 5.) no, go question (If your answer risk for? might be at you you think did b) diseases What any 27,1985, you asked about diseases were February 26 or you gave blood 5. When for these diseases? put you at risk experiences or behaviors or Yes_No_ recall_ Cannot giving blood stopped purposely you had ever or February 26 a) Before 6. time? period of recall_ Yes_No_Cannot 7) no, question (If go to suspend consciously you did before b) many times How blood donation? blood, was reason? what giving you suspended c) each time For blood, time there give you times volunteered to all the a) Thinking back accepted? was not your blood recall__ Yes_No_ Cannot 8) no, (If b) go to you long were given, and how you were reasons What disqualified as a you were occasions on each trying give donor? Length Disqualification Reasons Period (Deferral) Mo./Yr. Deferral *9 27, you might risk that February 26 or on concerned you at all 8. Were Virus) AIDS? Immunodeficiency or Human (infection with infection HIV recall_ Cannot, Yes_No_ blood, did give your 27, 1985, preparing in the course February or 9. On or verbal you any written give or volunteers staff Cross Red risks? AIDS recall_ Yes_No_ Cannot particular you a. Did this information mention the risk just identified as probably having you been how became infected? Yes_No_ recalL_ Cannot you you any b. Did Yes_No_ realize at the time that were a risk and give should not blood? recall_ Cannot blood, Why, you you give you c. if realized that should not go did ahead your donation? giving you copy 10. I am now says of the literature that the Red they Cross were giving given February to all donors on 26 or 1985. Please look it over. you Were read, you, this literature to or did someone read it February 26 or 1985? giving I you copy history 11. am now of the donor you signed card that on February you 26 or It appears trip 1985. discussed a to the Orient with the nurse. you topic your Japan Do recall how the travel up? came China Yes_No_ recall__ Cannot If answer is cannot recall: a. response that in question Was to a about travel to areas were malaria is common? Yes_No_ recall_ Cannot you personnel drawing your any b. Did discuss with the other regarding your eligibility to donate blood at that time? Yes_No_ recall_ Cannot If answer is YES: questions? a. What were those you person(s) b. Did raise them or did the interviewing you bring up? them you you 12. Lowcountry Do recall what date donated blood to the Cross February, 1985? Yes_No_ recall_ Cannot If answer is YES: a. you did Lowcountry February, What date donate blood to the Cross 1985? (was you specific your birthday; b. How do recall the date your wedding was it etc.) anniversary, February you 13. & 1985 could read? Yes_No_ recall_ Cannot i.e., February, your education, grade 14. 1985 what was level of what in school had you completed? your 15. What is 16. On date of birth? February provide you 26 or did the American Red staff with a private place you privacy any you your so could tell them in concerns had about donating blood? Yes_No_ recall_ Cannot Why proceed (Check you February did to donate blood on 1985? any apply.) _I high group did not that I in a risk know for AIDS. _I provided private confidentially being high group was not area to disclose risk for AIDS. __I _I thought opportunity it would be to be tested for AIDS. high group great knew I was in a risk had a AIDS but desire donate blood. _I patient. did not know blood would be used for transfusion into a _Others (please specify). you jail prison prior 18. Had ever been an inmate in a state or local to 2/27/85? Yes_i No_ recall_ Cannot Plaintiff, defendant, appointed and counsel for all the donor or his counsel to Court, party concerned are directed this Order not to without further order of this *10 any employ disseminate information learned all means to safe- Court 492 of donor or seller that a
I not believe do disease like has AIDS who blood donor while rights of the privacy guard blood, his may be communicated which plaintiff to allowing the time at the same right, constitu- privacy any kind a has of a limited basis discovery on proceed with otherwise, protect would which tional or Court. of this supervision under his full disclosure against him respect to the disease knowledge of the Court may leave with seek plaintiff others, physical as well as his questions to and follow-up himself set of present one taking everything about and donor condition discovery of the donor, all but I that handling believe of his blood. and days of this 45 completed within shall be right no seller of blood has a donor or such Order. his respect to a disease privacy with IT IS SO ORDERED. To hold other- another. blood transmits or other constitutional only lend wise would of our na- corruption protection to a C. like DAVID NORTON supply. The confinement District tional blood States United knowledge sought the district court Judge know, needing those by discovery to 6, 1991 protec- as much is at least under FRCP is entitled or seller tion, any, if the donor concurring: WIDENER, Judge, Circuit any such to, or existence of and the extent in much of in the result and I concur to, do not have we protection is opinion. Judge Hall’s not, decide. and do however, certain with agree, I do not dissenting: RUSSELL, Judge, Circuit of which opinion, none parts of that majority from the dissent respectfully I These obtained. necessary the result public I convinced opinion. am parts follow. adequate maintaining a safe and interest in opinion, IIIA of the in Part page 487 interest of the privacy supply and blood that the Red accept the contention I do not inter- plaintiff’s outweigh the donor raise the standing to has in this case. the donor deposing est one man rights. That constitutional discovery permitted the restricted Even rights of anoth- constitutional not raise the protect adequately does not this Court settled, Seldin, e.g., v. Warth er is well interests. important these 95 S.Ct. 422 U.S. mini disagree the Court’s Initially, I with nor (1975). reason Neither L.Ed.2d 348 by the interests asserted mization here, departure requires precedent reasoning of adopt the I Red Cross. would has the Red Cross apparent is at once state courts the several federal litigation positions standing take identity of HIV-infected protected have protect its blood it conceives which by the discovery, even blood donors pe- protection supply, out taking “veiled” purpose of for the court Indeed, the have arisen. questions ripheral recognized courts depositions. These the Red Cross standing of question of into one’s inquiry prospect “that in the briefs. raised has not been life, history, and personal medical as of Part paragraph first infectious diseases in the Especially association elsewhere, that could of disincentive perhaps is the kind opinion, AIDS III of the the na impact on read that have a serious may be opinion [adverse] Doe v. voluntary of a consti- blood.” some tion’s has kind of blood or seller Services, 125 Red Cross Blood protected American otherwise tutionally or (D.S.C.1989); Brad accord by the outweighed F.R.D. must be right which Cross, 132 National Red obtaining way v. American plaintiff in interest (N.D.Ga.1990); Coleman any such F.R.D. agree with I do not information. 130 F.R.D. American implication. *11 (E.D.Mich.1990); taking Rasmussen v. South the donor’s blood. The incremental Service, Florida Blood 500 So.2d information Watson discover from (Fla.1987); Laburre v. East Gen deposing the donor simply not worth Jefferson (La. Hospital, 555 eral So.2d 1384-85 placing the nation’s supply blood at risk or 1990). the district Unlike court and the offending constitutional privacy protec- case, majority in this these courts do not facts, tions. Under these the interests as- require “hard statistical data” to substanti serted the Red Cross outweigh far Wat- of a supply ate the claim diminished blood son’s need to depose the donor. in weighing before such claim the balance majority opinion notes that new ante, data, of interests. at 485. Such See testing procedures blood were implemented seems, only be available actual 1985, which, in because of their accuracy, ly subjecting litigation donors to a threat of should significantly reduce the number of documenting and then the effect on the Ante, blood transfusion HIV suits. supply. cost is not Thus, n. 6. future donors should have little certainty knowledge. worth We can fear of involvement in litigation. However, rely on common sense notions of human it seems that advances, as science so do behavior to conclude that the Red Cross’s diseases, ensuring a supply constant logical regard claim this deserves sub blood transfusion cases. A few doctors stantial consideration. recently reported cases an AIDS- disagree I also that the Court’s decision patients like disease in negative who test protects adequately donor’s for the two known HIV viruses. It is not privacy identity interests. The donor’s yet known if the disease can be transferred medical condition will be revealed involun- through blood transfusions. Donald G. tarily people, including several McNeil, Jr., Again, Once the Disease Con- staff, judge, judge’s attorney ap- Science, Times, N.Y. July founds pointed interests, represent the donor’s (national ed.). so, Section at 2 If we attorney’s During and that staff. again see an increase in blood transfusion litigation, course of the the donor will re- litigation. correspondence telephone ceive and/or reasons, For join opin- I do not regarding litigation, likely calls attorney appointed Accordingly, have to meet with the ion of this Court. I would not interests, represent the donor’s and will affirm the district compelling court’s order respond have to take time to to Watson’s discovery. questions.
written Such involvement will escape roommates, family,
not notice acquaintances,
intimate possibly even
employers, exposure and will risk further personal
of the donor’s medical informa- America, protection tion. The certain UNITED of the STATES privacy donor’s interests Plaintiff-Appellee, through comes an prohibition absolute identity. donor’s MUNOZ, Miro, Argemiro a/k/a Finally, disagree majority’s I with the Defendant-Appellant. conclusion that interest in dis- Watson’s (Two Cases) covery outweighs society’s interest in a 90-7375, Nos. 92-6195. adequate safe and and the Appeals, United States Court of interests in this case. Wat- already adequate son has Fourth Circuit. information to proceed pro- with her suit. The Red Cross Argued July 8, 1992. copy screening questionnaire vided a Aug. Decided donor, completed by the as well as other relevant donor information known to the addition, per- Cross. Watson was depose
mitted to the nurses involved