Court Upholds Limit on Sperm Donors’ Privacy

The California Supreme Court has let stand a lower court ruling that anonymous sperm donors do not have an unlimited right to privacy and can be forced to testify in legal proceedings.

Without comment, the high court Wednesday unanimously upheld a May appellate court decision demanding that a man, identified only as Donor 276, testify in a lawsuit against a Culver City sperm bank.

According to a lawsuit by the parents of an 11-year-old Santa Barbara girl afflicted with a kidney disorder, the anonymous donor was allowed to give sperm, although he had a family history of kidney disease.

Attorneys in the case said the ruling could affect other privacy issues, even undermining anonymity in adoption proceedings.

“The decision is saying the state has a duty and great interest to see that truth comes out in all litigation, and that that interest is bigger than the interest of a private person’s anonymity, whether it was contractually provided for or not,” said Gary Bostwich, an attorney representing the anonymous sperm donor.

The family contends that the girl, Brittany Johnson, was one of hundreds of children potentially conceived with sperm from Donor 276. He has received more than $11,000 for donations to California Cryobank since 1986.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles said in May that Donor 276 must testify in the case, and “his identity should remain undisclosed to the fullest extent possible.” The court said the doctor-patient privilege does not apply because the donor was not truly a patient of the clinic.

A representative of the sperm bank did not return repeated phone calls. But the bank’s attorney has said such a decision could scare away donors.