In Monica W. v. Milevoi (252 AD2d 260 [1st Dept 1999]) a mother commenced an action on behalf of herself and her twin daughters to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the twins as the result of their ingestion of lead paint. In the course of her deposition, the mother was asked some 103 questions concerning the nonparty siblings of the twins, to which counsel directed her not to respond. The mother was also directed not to answer questions concerning her own general medical history and the medical history of the twins' father. Defendants moved for a further deposition and to require responses to questions concerning the twins' siblings. Plaintiffs cross-moved for a protective order. The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion, finding that while the siblings' academic backgrounds, I.Q.s, medical histories and developmental milestones may not be privileged per se, their privacy was entitled to protection absent a showing that the defendants' need for disclosure outweighed the importance of protecting the nonparties' privacy. On appeal, the defendants argued that they were not seeking discovery of school records, records concerning any cognitive tests or medical records of the nonparty siblings, but rather only to conduct a factual inquiry concerning these areas at the deposition of the mother. The defendants argued that this avenue of inquiry was both material and necessary to the defense of the action. The First Department noted at the outset that in terms of discovery it made no difference whether defendants sought information from records or from the examination of a witness. The same rules applied. The Court then went on to discuss the disclosure of medical information. The Court stated that: "The infant plaintiffs, by seeking recovery resulting from their exposure to lead, have necessarily placed their mental and physical conditions in issue and have implicitly waived their privilege against disclosure of their medical records ... The same cannot be said of their parents and siblings, who are entitled to protection against the release of confidential medical information. In the absence of waiver, this material is privileged, and the non-parties' privilege against disclosure, which is personal to them ... cannot be defeated by defendants' assertions that it is material and necessary to their defense ." (Monica W. v. Milevoi, supra, at 262-263.) Citing the Court of Appeals, the Court went on to state that " 'it is inherent in the very nature of an evidentiary privilege that it presents an obstacle to discovery and it is precisely in those situations where confidential information is sought in advancing a legal claim that such privilege is intended to operate. Were we to carve out an exception to the privilege whenever it inhibited the fact-finding process, it would quickly become eviscerated.' " (Monica W. v. Milevoi, supra, at 263.) In Milevoi, the Court determined that in order to establish the relevance of information sought from nonparties to any claim or defense, an expert's affidavit was required that demonstrated "the extent to which the adverse effects of lead exposure contributed to the mental and physical condition of the infant plaintiffs cannot be ascertained by reference to objective clinical criteria and expert testimony." (Monica W. v. Milevoi, supra, at 263.) In addition, the Court stated that there must be a demonstration of how the information sought pertains to any disability or developmental impairment experienced by the infant plaintiffs. (Monica W. v. Milevoi, supra, at 263.) The Court concluded that an "intimation that genetic and other environmental factors may have contributed to the infant plaintiffs' impairment is speculative, at best, and does not serve to introduce the issue into the case." (Monica W. v. Milevoi, supra, at 263.) The First Department held that infant plaintiffs who are seeking a recovery due to lead-paint exposure have necessarily placed their mental and physical conditions in issue and waived their privilege against disclosure of their medical records; however, the same cannot be said of their parents and siblings. The First Department held that such material from parents and siblings is privileged and cannot be defeated by a defendant merely asserting that it is material and necessary to the defense. In the Monica W. case, the defendant's demand was overbroad and the relevance had not been established; that is, the defendant presented no expert affidavit to show that the effects of lead exposure cannot be ascertained by looking to objective clinical criteria and expert testimony alone, and presented no proof to show how the information sought from the infant's parent pertains to any disability or developmental impairment of the infant plaintiff.