Case Could Set Law on Privacy vs. Public Rights

In a case that may ultimately determine whether a person’s privacy outweighs the public’s right to know, the California Supreme Court said it would make the decision whether to disclose how much was paid to each of some 50 couples who sued UC Irvine over the fertility scandal.

Acting Chief Justice Stanley Mosk, in a terse, one-sentence ruling, granted a motion late Thursday to keep secret the identities of the patients and the amounts they received “pending final determination in this court.”

The high court’s involvement, which could have far-reaching implications for the citizenry’s right to know how their government spends public money, is the latest twist in a story that erupted in 1994, when it was first alleged that doctors at a UCI fertility clinic had taken the eggs of patients without their permission and given them to other women.

More than 102 lawsuits were subsequently filed by former patients against the university and the doctors. About 28 of the lawsuits were filed by Orange attorney Melanie R. Blum.

On behalf of her clients, Blum agreed with university lawyers to attempt to resolve the lawsuits through “mediation” and entered into “private” agreements with university regents.

The terms of these agreements “included the understanding that the parties were disclosing sensitive information” and relying “upon an agreement of confidentiality,” according to court papers filed by Donna Bader, a Blum associate.

Bader noted that “mediation continued and several cases have settled,” but the documents do not indicate how many of Blum’s clients had reached settlements.

The case before the high court resulted from a December 1996 court action filed by Freedom Newspapers Inc., publisher of the Orange County Register, which sought a Superior Court ruling that any settlements would be public.

Superior Court Judge Robert E. Thomas agreed with the newspaper company on June 5, ruling that “the privacy rights of the settling [patients] are insufficient to outweigh the public interest in the settlement and sums paid” under the California Public Records Act.

*

The judge observed that “strong public policy favors dissemination of public records.” And he went on to note, “this information would be disclosed after the conclusion of the action in any event because these are public money settlements [and] once a case is settled, there is no longer any protection” in the law to keep them secret.

But Blum was not to be deterred, and promptly filed an appeal with the 4th District Court of Appeal.

On June 27, the appellate court summarily denied Blum’s appeal, leaving her no choice but to go to the state Supreme Court.

In in her argument to the Supreme Court, Blum associate Bader wrote, “Most of the [patients] are private citizens who suddenly found themselves thrust in the light of public scrutiny, only to have the most intimate facts of their lives opened to the press and public.

“This, of course, has proved embarrassing for these individuals, many of whom never sought notoriety, and has subjected them to humiliation and emotional strain,” Bader continued.

“Fortunately, some of these petitioners were able to maintain some semblance of privacy by avoiding the attempts of the press to discover these facts,” Bader wrote.

In arguing to keep the amounts from the public, Bader asserted that Blum’s clients “are claiming that disclosure of the settlement amounts in their individual cases would result in an invasion of privacy, [including] their rights to reproductive freedom and to maintain the confidentiality of their financial records.”

These interests, Bader wrote, “are not outweighed by the public interest.”

Blum said late Friday the only reason she sought the stay was to protect the privacy of her clients.

“Do you really want a private medical report talking about your private gynecological records and your husband’s sperm count circulated to every newspaper?” she said.

“I haven’t had clients crawling to me wanting to talk to the media.”

Blum declined to say how much she would be getting from the settlement, but she said, “This is not like the big tobacco cases or other class-action cases you hear about.”

Also contributing to this report was Times staff writer Janet Wilson.