Civil ProcedureDiscoveryProtective OrdersPrivacyRule 1.280(b)(1)Rule 1.280(c)discoveryprotective order
Facts
After being injured when struck by an automobile, Rasmussen was hospitalized and received fifty-one units of blood by transfusion. About a year later he was diagnosed with AIDS and later died, and his estate continued the action. To support his claim that the AIDS was caused by transfusions necessitated by the accident, he subpoenaed the nonparty Blood Service for records showing the names and addresses of the 51 donors. There was no allegation that the Blood Service itself had been negligent.
Issue
When a plaintiff seeks discovery of the names and addresses of volunteer blood donors in order to investigate whether one of them may have had AIDS or belonged to a high-risk group, do the donors' privacy interests and society's interest in preserving a strong volunteer blood donation system outweigh the plaintiff's interest in discovery under the Florida discovery rules?
Rule
Although relevant nonprivileged matter is generally discoverable, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c) gives courts broad discretion to limit or prohibit discovery to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including to protect privacy. In deciding whether a protective order is appropriate where discovery threatens an undue invasion of privacy, the court must balance the competing interests served by granting or denying discovery, considering the importance of each interest and the extent to which disclosure would serve it.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a negligence action in Tampa, Elena Morris claims she developed a stigmatized infectious condition after emergency surgery that included transplanted donor tissue. She subpoenas a nonparty tissue bank for the names and home addresses of all 18 anonymous donors so her investigator can determine whether any donor belonged to a medically recognized high-risk group, and the subpoena contains no limits on further use of the information.
How should the court most likely rule on the tissue bank's motion for a protective order under Florida discovery rules?
Explanation. Under the majority opinion, relevant nonprivileged information is generally discoverable, but Rule 1.280(c) gives courts broad discretion to limit or prohibit discovery to protect a person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden, including undue invasion of privacy. When requested discovery threatens nonparty privacy, the court must balance the competing interests and assess both their importance and the extent to which disclosure would actually advance them. Unrestricted disclosure of donor identities to support a speculative inquiry into sensitive personal matters has dubious probative value and substantial potential for harm, so a protective order is proper.