Plaintiffs' counsel typically allege that the blood bank negligently screened the donor during the interview and negligently framed the screening questions to permit people at high risk to answer truthfully but still be permitted to donate. The requirement of the donor's name, address, and other identifying information typically sought by interrogatory has been objected to by blood banks under a protective order under Federal Rule 26(c). Courts have been divided in their rulings on the issue of confidentiality in AIDS cases, while blood banks argue that a decision that puts a penalty on the act of voluntarily giving blood could endanger the greater good to society. However, it was claimed in one court case that donors who had nothing to hide would continue to donate blood while those at high risk would be deterred. A rarely successful argument by blood banks is the use of physician-patient privilege to prevent disclosure of the donor's identity. In the final analysis, the interests of both the blood banks and blood recipients are a safe blood supply, and both are served by disclosure of the donor's identity.