Johnson v. Superior Court
2000 Daily Journal DAR 5242, 95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 864, 80 Cal. App. 4th 1050 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A child conceived through anonymous sperm donation and their parents may compel the donor to be deposed in a lawsuit against the sperm bank for transmitting a genetic disease, as their need for relevant information outweighs the donor's constitutional and contractual rights to privacy, but the court must protect the donor's identity to the fullest extent possible.
Facts:
- Diane and Ronald Johnson decided to conceive a child using a sperm donor and contracted with California Cryobank, Inc. (Cryobank).
- The Johnsons signed an agreement with Cryobank stating that the donor's identity would 'forever remain anonymous.'
- Cryobank sold the Johnsons frozen sperm from Donor No. 276, assuring them that he had been genetically screened.
- At the time Donor No. 276 sold his sperm in December 1986, he had informed Cryobank that his mother and aunt both suffered from kidney disease.
- Diane Johnson was successfully inseminated, and her daughter, Brittany Johnson, was born on April 18, 1989.
- In May 1995, Brittany was diagnosed with Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease (ADPKD), a genetic kidney disease that neither of her parents has.
- Donor No. 276 made over 320 sperm deposits with Cryobank, for which he received approximately $11,200.
Procedural Posture:
- Diane L. Johnson, Ronald G. Johnson, and their minor daughter filed an action against California Cryobank, Inc., and its doctors in a California superior court (trial court).
- During discovery, the Johnsons served a deposition subpoena on John Doe, the alleged anonymous sperm donor.
- Cryobank and John Doe filed motions to quash the deposition subpoena, while the Johnsons filed a motion to compel compliance.
- The trial court denied the Johnsons' motion to compel and granted the motions to quash the subpoena.
- The Johnsons (petitioners) then filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Court of Appeal, asking it to direct the trial court to vacate its order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an anonymous sperm donor's constitutional right to privacy and contractual right to anonymity prevent a family from compelling his deposition and production of documents in their lawsuit against the sperm bank for allegedly transmitting a genetic disease?
Opinions:
Majority - Mallano, J.
No. A sperm donor's privacy and contractual interests do not create an absolute bar to discovery where a family has a compelling need for information in litigation against a sperm bank, though the court must implement protections to maintain the donor's anonymity. The court rejected three arguments for quashing the deposition. First, the physician-patient privilege does not apply because the donor's dominant purpose for visiting Cryobank was to sell his sperm, not to secure a diagnosis or treatment, meaning he was not a 'patient' under the law. Second, while the donor was a third-party beneficiary of the Johnson-Cryobank contract promising anonymity, an absolute bar on disclosure is unenforceable as it violates public policy, specifically the policy expressed in Family Code § 7613 allowing inspection of insemination records for 'good cause' and the state's compelling interest in the health of children. Third, while the donor has a constitutional right to privacy in his identity and medical information, this right is not absolute. Applying the Hill test, the court found the donor's expectation of privacy was diminished by his extensive commercial activity and the nature of sperm donation. The court balanced the donor's privacy interest against the compelling state interests in seeking truth in litigation and ensuring redress for injuries, finding that the petitioners' need for the information was essential to the fair resolution of their lawsuit and outweighed the donor's privacy interest, provided that the court crafts a protective order to maintain his anonymity to the greatest extent possible.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent in the law of assisted reproductive technology by clarifying that a sperm donor's anonymity is not absolute. It provides a framework for balancing the donor's privacy rights against the discovery needs of litigants harmed by alleged negligence. The decision allows for essential discovery to proceed in tort claims against sperm banks while mandating that courts use protective orders as a tool to shield donor identity. This creates a middle ground that acknowledges the importance of donor confidentiality to the industry but prioritizes a child's welfare and a family's right to legal redress when compelling needs are demonstrated.
