## Facts

- Bridget B. sued her husband, John B., alleging he contracted HIV through unprotected sex with multiple men before and during their marriage and knowingly or negligently transmitted HIV to her.
- John, who had developed AIDS, denied transmitting HIV to Bridget and asserted she infected him.
- John relied on a documented negative HIV test dated August 17, 2000, taken in connection with a life-insurance application, about six weeks before Bridget learned she was HIV-positive.
- In discovery, Bridget sought broad production of John’s medical records and extensive information about his sexual history.
- The trial court overruled John’s privacy objections and permitted broad discovery into his medical records and sexual history over the prior 10 years.
- The Court of Appeal limited discovery only by barring requests for identities of John’s sexual partners and certain “lifestyle” admissions, but otherwise allowed broad discovery.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether, and how, privacy protections required tighter limits on the scope of discovery.

## Issues

1. To what extent may a plaintiff alleging HIV transmission obtain discovery into the defendant-spouse’s medical records and sexual history consistent with statutory and constitutional privacy protections?
2. How should courts limit discovery in time when a negative HIV test narrows the medically plausible period of infection?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the authorized discovery was overbroad in light of John’s negative HIV test and the privacy interests implicated by medical and sexual-history information.
- The Court required that discovery into John’s medical records and sexual history be limited to the six-month period preceding the August 17, 2000 negative HIV test (the likely infection “window period”).
- The Court allowed broader temporal discovery only if Bridget made a showing that the negative test’s accuracy or reliability could reasonably be questioned.
- The Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeal and remanded with directions to impose the temporal limitation and to continue protecting privacy interests, including third-party privacy.

## Legal Principles

- Even under broad civil discovery rules, courts must balance the need for relevant evidence against constitutional and statutory privacy rights when discovery seeks highly sensitive medical and sexual information.
- HIV-related test results, medical records, and sexual history implicate especially strong privacy interests and require narrow tailoring and consideration of less intrusive means.
- When scientific or medical evidence narrows the relevant time period, courts should confine discovery to that period unless the requesting party provides a specific basis for expanding the scope.
- Discovery that would substantially intrude on the privacy of nonparties (such as identifying prior sexual partners) warrants heightened protection and careful limits.

## Conclusion

The court required strict, time-limited discovery into a spouse’s HIV-related medical records and sexual history, holding that a negative HIV test narrowed relevance to a six-month window absent evidence calling the test’s reliability into question.


John B. v. Superior Court, 38 Cal. 4th 1177 (Cal. 2006)