the exposure creating the need for surveillance was “the very essence of irreparable harm”); Gibbs v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 876 F.Supp. 475, 481 (W.D.N.Y.1995) (“A court-administered fund which goes beyond payment of the costs of monitoring an individual plaintiffs health to establish pooled resources for the early detection and advances in treatment of the disease is injunctive in nature rather than ‘predominantly money damages’ and therefore is properly certified under Rule 23(b)(2)”); Hansen v. Mountain Fuel Supply, 858 P.2d 970, 982 (Utah 1993) (use of a court-supervised fund to administer medical monitoring “is a highly appropriate use of the Court’s equitable powers”); Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 6 Cal.4th 965, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 550, 863 P.2d 795, 825 (1993) (<HOLDING>). We find that under Rule 23(b)(2), after
holding that courtsupervised funds for medical monitoring for massexposure toxic torts cases best serve public health interests holding that requiring a petitioner to establish by clear and convincing evidence that visitation is in the best interests of the child would provide effective protection for a parents choice except where the choice is plainly contrary to a childs best interests holding that an official has defrauded the public of his services if he secretly makes an official decision based on his own personal interests rather than the best interests of his constituents holding that privacy interests outweighed public interests even though the public is already familiar with certain aspects of the requested data holding court cannot change custody without showing that change is in best interests of child