## Facts

- Cheryl Coleman received a blood transfusion at the University of Michigan Hospital on August 15, 1984, using blood donated to the American Red Cross days earlier.
- Mrs. Coleman later tested positive for HIV antibodies and, with her husband, sued the American Red Cross for negligence in donor screening and failure to test donated blood.
- In discovery, the plaintiffs sought the donor’s identity; the Red Cross resisted based on donor confidentiality and protection of the blood supply.
- The district court ordered production of donor records with identifying information redacted and prohibited plaintiffs from using the records to identify or attempt to identify the donor.
- The Red Cross inadvertently produced a donor card containing an unredacted Social Security number.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel hired a private investigator who used the Social Security number to determine the donor’s name and address, contrary to the protective order.
- On remand after earlier appeals, the Red Cross sought sanctions for the protective-order violation, including dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the negligence action as a sanction for violating the donor-confidentiality protective order under Rule 41(b), Rule 37(b), and inherent authority.
2. Whether the district court applied an improperly restrictive standard in limiting discovery, including refusing discovery of documents located at the Red Cross’s national headquarters.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court held that the protective-order violation warranted sanctions, but dismissal was an excessively harsh sanction on the record presented.
- The court directed the district court to consider less drastic sanctions, including sanctions aimed at counsel rather than terminating the clients’ case.
- The court upheld confidentiality-based limits on discovery methods in principle, but instructed the district court to recalibrate discovery consistent with relevance and prior appellate guidance, including with respect to headquarters documents.

## Legal Principles

- Dismissal for discovery misconduct is an extreme sanction and generally requires consideration of: (1) willfulness or bad faith, (2) prejudice to the opposing party, (3) prior warning that dismissal could result, and (4) whether lesser sanctions were imposed or meaningfully considered.
- A deliberate violation of a protective order can justify significant sanctions, but trial courts should evaluate whether prejudice can be cured short of dismissal.
- Confidentiality interests (including blood donor privacy and protection of the blood supply) may justify protective orders and limits on the manner and dissemination of discovery, even where underlying information is relevant.
- Discovery limits should balance relevance and need against burden and confidentiality, using measures such as redaction and restricted use rather than categorical denial when feasible.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit concluded that, although plaintiffs’ counsel intentionally violated a donor-confidentiality protective order, the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the case without adequately considering lesser, curative sanctions and appropriately tailored discovery; the matter was remanded for further proceedings under those standards.


Coleman v. Am. Red Cross, 23 F.3d 1091 (6th Cir. 1994)