## Facts

- Diane and Ronald Johnson, acting on medical advice, used sperm obtained from California Cryobank, Inc. to conceive their daughter, Brittany.
- The Johnsons’ agreement with Cryobank reflected that they would not require or expect disclosure of the donor’s name or identifying information.
- After birth, Brittany was diagnosed with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD), a hereditary kidney disorder.
- The Johnsons sued Cryobank and associated physicians for professional negligence, fraud, and breach of contract, alleging failure to disclose material hereditary risk information connected to the donor.
- In discovery, the Johnsons subpoenaed the anonymous donor (“John Doe”) for deposition testimony and documents concerning his medical and family history relevant to ADPKD.
- The trial court granted motions to quash the subpoena and denied the Johnsons’ motion to compel.
- The Johnsons sought writ relief to overturn the discovery ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs may compel deposition testimony and document production from an anonymous sperm donor regarding relevant medical and family history in litigation against a sperm bank and physicians.
2. How a court should balance the donor’s privacy and anonymity interests against the plaintiffs’ need for relevant discovery.
3. Whether an agreement contemplating donor anonymity bars compelled discovery from the donor.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted writ relief in substantial part.
- The court directed the trial court to vacate its order quashing the subpoena and denying the motion to compel.
- The court held the donor must sit for deposition and produce documents relevant to the claims, including information about his and his family’s ADPKD history and related communications.
- The court required discovery to proceed under stringent protections designed to keep the donor’s identity undisclosed to the fullest extent possible.

## Legal Principles

- California civil discovery permits discovery of relevant, nonprivileged matters reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
- When discovery implicates privacy interests of a nonparty, the court must balance the requesting party’s need for the information against the nonparty’s privacy rights and tailor discovery to reduce intrusion.
- Contractual expectations of anonymity may strengthen a donor’s confidentiality interest but do not categorically prevent a court from ordering discovery necessary to fairly litigate claims.
- Courts may compel production of medical and family-history information while using protective orders, redaction, access limits, and scope limits to preserve confidentiality and anonymity.

## Conclusion

The court required the anonymous sperm donor to provide targeted discovery relevant to alleged genetic-risk nondisclosure claims, while directing the trial court to structure the discovery to protect the donor’s privacy and maintain his anonymity as much as possible.


Johnson v. Superior Court, 95 Cal. Rptr. 2d 864 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)