 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
In re Dallas County Hospital District12/13/1999
cannot agree with the real parties in interest that the information is not otherwise obtainable because a videotape is necessary for the jury to determine donor P3098's credibility and to demonstrate to the jury the physical pain and suffering the plaintiff is likely to undergo by showing the jury how the virus has affected donor P3098. Although I recognize that the jury might better determine donor P3098's credibility if the deposition were videotaped or if the donor were to testify in person at trial, I cannot conclude that alone is sufficient to outweigh the donor's statutory right to anonymity. Nor can I agree that it is necessary to videotape the deposition to demonstrate the physical pain and suffering the plaintiff is likely to undergo as a result of AIDS. That information could be provided through expert testimony or through a willing AIDS patient.
I would determine that the November 3, 1999 order does not meet the criteria set forth in section 162.011(a), and thus I would conclude the trial court abused its discretion. I would conditionally grant the writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to fashion an order allowing the deposition of donor P3098 using a form of deposition which is not as likely to lead to the identification of donor P3098.
CAROLYN WRIGHT, JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47.
|