The court assumes without deciding that plaintiffs possess a limited constitutional right to privacy in medical treatment. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 241, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) (federal court should not pass on questions of constitutionality unless such adjudication is unavoidable); accord NASA v. Nelson, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 746, 756-57, 178 L.Ed.2d 667 (2011) (assuming without deciding that inquiries in a government agency’s official background investigation “implicate a privacy interest of constitutional significance”). In doing so, the court acknowledges that some federal circuit courts have recognized that an inmate has a limited constitutional right to medical privacy. See Moore v. Prevo, 379 Fed.Appx. 425, 428 (6th Cir.2010) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>); Doe v. Delie, 257 F.3d 309, 316-17, 323 (3d
recognizing privacy interest in medical records requested under freedom of information act holding that regulations may impinge constitutional rights if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests holding that individual has privacy interest in medical information including diagnosis holding that when a prison regulation impinges on inmates constitutional rights the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests holding that an inmate has a privacy interest in guarding against disclosure of sensitive medical information from other inmates subject to legitimate penological interests