Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Register and Subscribe Now
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Plaintiff allegedly sustained permanent and serious injuries when he was mounting a tire on a rim. Defendants sought to compel Plaintiff to submit to an HIV blood test, asserting the information that would be obtained was essential to their ability to defend against alleged future damages. Defendants contended that Plaintiff’s HIV status was relevant to his life expectancy and to determining future damages. Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to submit to a blood test.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a) authorizes the court to order a physical examination of a party if the party’s physical condition is “in controversy” and “good cause” is shown.
Plaintiff allegedly sustained permanent and serious injuries due to an explosion that occurred when he was mounting a tire on a rim. During discovery, Defendants learned that Plaintiff was a former abuser of injectable drugs; Plaintiff also admitted to being bisexual and engaging in unprotected homosexual activity. Plaintiff had never submitted to a blood test to determine his HIV status. Defendants sought to compel an HIV blood test, asserting the information that would be obtained was essential to their ability to defend against alleged future damages. Defendants contended that Plaintiff’s HIV status was relevant to his life expectancy and to determining future damages, and that Plaintiff put this matter in issue, so it was not burdensome or prejudicial to request the blood test. Plaintiff argued that the blood test was an invasion of his privacy rights. Defendants filed a motion to compel Plaintiff to submit to a blood test.
Should Plaintiff be compelled to submit to a blood test?
No. The court denied Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to submit to a blood test.
The court exercised its discretion to limit Defendants’ discovery because the relevance of the information Defendants sought in the blood test, which was not yet in existence, was too attenuated. The court rejected Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff placed his life expectancy “in controversy” as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35. The extraordinary relief sought stretched beyond the parameters of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 35(a).