Aykak Karapetyan v. Alejandro Mayorkas

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 2, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-05838
StatusUnknown

This text of Aykak Karapetyan v. Alejandro Mayorkas (Aykak Karapetyan v. Alejandro Mayorkas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Aykak Karapetyan v. Alejandro Mayorkas, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10

11 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 AYKAK KARAPETYAN, ET AL., Case No. 2:24-cv-05838-SPG (AGRx) 13 Plaintiffs, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 14

15 v. NOTE CHANGES MADE BY COURT 16 ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, ET AL.,

17 Defendants.1 18

19 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 20 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, 21 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 22 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted, including case- 23 specific, asylum-related, or private information relating to Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the 24 parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 25

26 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), Joseph B. Edlow is substituted 27 for Ur M. Jaddou as the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Kristi Noem is substituted for Alejandro Mayorkas; and Pamela Bondi is substituted for Merrick 1 Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 2 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 3 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 4 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 5 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 6 This action is likely to involve: (i) information, documents or tangible things 7 protected by the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, et seq., or information that would be 8 covered by the Privacy Act if the subject of the information had been a U.S. citizen or a 9 person lawfully admitted for permanent residence; (ii) information, documents or tangible 10 things—which may include, among other things, Department of Homeland Security 11 (“DHS”), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and U.S. Citizenship and 12 Immigration Services (“USCIS”) records regarding law enforcement activities and 13 operations, internal policies, processes and procedures, and internal investigations—which 14 contain information that is law enforcement sensitive, for instance, information which 15 would be protected from disclosure under Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, et 16 seq., under the exemption found at 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E); (iii) information contained in 17 or pertaining to asylum claims or applications, including applications for relief under the 18 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and refugee information; (iv) any identifying 19 information that is not publicly available and qualifies for protection under applicable law, 20 statutes or regulations (including 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.6, 1208.6(a)), including, but not limited 21 to, the names, addresses, date of birth, and “A” number of the particular individual to 22 whom information relates, any other personally identifiable information identified in 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, and any personally identifiable information related to 24 third parties other than the individual whose information is being sought; and (v) any other 25 information that is protected or restricted from disclosure by Court order, statutes, or 26 regulations, including but not limited to: 8 U.S.C. §§ 1202(f), 1304(b), and 1367(a)(2), 27 (b), (c), (d); 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.6, 244.16, 245a.21, 1003.46, and 1208.6, which otherwise 1 could subject either party to civil or criminal penalties or other sanctions in the event of 2 unauthorized disclosure. 3 Specifically, on October 14, 2025, Defendants will file the Certified Administrative 4 Record (“CAR”) of Plaintiff Aykak’s asylum application, which was filed with United 5 States Citizenship and Immigration Services on August 16, 2021. See Order (ECF No. 32); 6 Answer (ECF No. 24) ¶ 11. The CAR is likely to contain personally identifiable 7 information and information regarding Plaintiff Aykak’s asylum application including 8 information regarding his prior persecution and fear of future persecution that is protected 9 by law. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.6 (governing the disclosure of information contained in or 10 pertaining to any asylum application). Disclosure of asylum-related information may 11 subject an asylum applicant to retaliatory measures by government authorities or non-state 12 actors in the event that an asylum applicant is repatriated, or endanger the security of the 13 applicant’s family members still residing in the applicant’s country of origin. See USCIS 14 Asylum Division, Fact Sheet: Federal Regulation Protecting the Confidentiality of 15 Asylum Applicants (Oct. 18, 2012), 16 https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/fact-sheets/Asylum- 17 ConfidentialityFactSheet.pdf. 18 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution 19 of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information 20 the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 21 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, 22 to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 23 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties 24 that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing 25 be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 26 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record 27 of this case. 1 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 2 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 3 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle the parties to file confidential information 4 under seal. Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 5 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material 6 under seal. 7 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 8 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good 9 cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 10 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 187 11 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause 12 showing). A specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary 13 support and legal justification, must be made with respect to protected material that a party 14 seeks to file under seal. See Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th 15 Cir. 2002).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Mall Tool Co. v. Sterling Varnish Co.
11 F.R.D. 576 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Aykak Karapetyan v. Alejandro Mayorkas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aykak-karapetyan-v-alejandro-mayorkas-cacd-2025.