George Manjikian v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 23, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-08642
StatusUnknown

This text of George Manjikian v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (George Manjikian v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services) 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
George Manjikian v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4

5 GEORGE MANJIKIAN, Case No. 2:23-CV-08642-FMO-RAO 6 Plaintiff,

7 v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 8 UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES 9 Defendant. 10 11 12 A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 13 Disclosure of the Certified Administrative Record (“CAR”) in this action is 14 likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary or private information for 15 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 16 than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby 17 stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. 18 The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 19 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public 20 disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to 21 confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 22 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 23 Plaintiff George Manjikian previously filed a Form I-589, Application for 24 Asylum and Withholding of Removal (“asylum application”) before the United States 25 Citizenship and Immigration Services. Because Plaintiff’s asylum application was 26 reviewed and considered to adjudicate Plaintiff’s subsequent Form I-485, Application 27 to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, the CAR will contain personally 1 identifiable information and confidential information which pertains to Plaintiff’s 2 asylum claim. 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) provides that a party may move for a 4 Protective Order and a court may issue a Protective Order for good cause. The parties 5 believe that good cause exists for the entry of a proposed Protective Order to protect 6 against the unauthorized disclosure of confidential, for-official-use-only, and private 7 information. 8 Furthermore, 8 C.F.R. § 208.6 prohibits disclosure of information related to an 9 asylum request. This regulation is designed to protect the confidentiality of asylum 10 applicants to prevent “the disclosure of facts that would link the [applicant]’s identity 11 with the fact that the alien has applied for asylum.’” Lin v. United States, 459 F.3d 12 255, 263 (2nd Cir. 2006); Doe v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Case 13 No. 1:21-cv-00576-NONE-SAB, 2021 WL 1907562 at *4 (E.D. Cal. May 12, 2021). 14 In other words, the regulation protects the applicant from risk of persecution if he 15 were to return to his home country. Furthermore, Defendant is bound by 8 C.F.R. § 16 208.6 to prevent public disclosure of Plaintiff’s identity and the basis for his asylum 17 application. 18 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 19 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of materials within the CAR, to adequately 20 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 21 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and 22 in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve 23 the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. 24 It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 25 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 26 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 27 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 1 C. DEFINITIONS 2 1. “Litigation” shall mean the case captioned George Manjikian v. United States 3 Citizenship and Immigration Services, Case No. 2:23-CV-08642-FMO-RAO 4 (C.D. Cal.). 5 2. “Confidential Information” shall mean information that, at the time of its 6 furnishment in the Litigation, or thereafter, is designated confidential by the 7 Producing Party because of a good-faith belief that the information is not in 8 the public domain, or if in the public domain, is improperly in the public 9 domain; and: 10 a. is a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or 11 commercial information as such terms are used in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 26(c)(1)(G); 13 b. personal financial, medical or other private information relating to an 14 individual that would properly be redacted from any public court filing 15 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2; 16 c. is information protected by the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C § 552a, 8 17 U.S.C. § 1202(f), 8 U.S.C. § 1367, 8 C.F.R. § 208.6, or any other 18 applicable statute or regulation; 19 d. any information compiled for law enforcement purposes, including, but 20 not limited to, investigative files and techniques related to the integrity 21 of the legal immigration system, suspected or known fraud, criminal 22 activity, public safety, or national security, and investigative referrals; 23 e. any sensitive, but unclassified, information to include limited-official- 24 use or for official use only information; 25 f. names, email addresses, and phone numbers of federal employees; 26 g. is information that could, if disclosed, be used to interfere with the 27 official duties of Government employees; or 1 be protected from public disclosure, but is not otherwise provided for 2 under this paragraph (2), for good cause shown. Any party who invokes 3 clause (h) of this paragraph shall furnish the basis of their belief that the 4 underlying document should be treated as confidential. 5 3. “Disclose” (or forms thereof) shall mean to distribute, provide, or otherwise 6 make available for access, viewing, or copying. “Disclose” shall include the 7 actual covered document or item as well as the contents or information 8 contained therein, so that disclosing a copy, summary, paraphrasing, or 9 characterization would be considered a disclosure of the document itself for 10 purposes of this Protective Order. 11 4. “Document” shall mean all items listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A)-(B). 12 5. “Challenging Party” shall mean any party who challenges the designation of 13 information as Confidential Information under this Protective Order. 14 6. “Designating Party” shall mean the party or other person seeking to designate 15 and have treated as Confidential Information pursuant to this Protective 16 Order. 17 7. “Producing Party” shall mean the person or party furnishing the Document in 18 the Litigation. 19 8. “Receiving Party” shall mean any party who receives information that has 20 been designated as Confidential Information. 21 9. “Personally Identifiable Information” or “PII” includes, without limitation 22 thereto, the information listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). 23 D. PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND LIMITATIONS OF PROTECTIVE ORDER 24 1.

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

Related

Fields, Beverly v. Off Eddie Johnson
459 F.3d 1 (D.C. Circuit, 2006)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
George Manjikian v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-manjikian-v-us-citizenship-immigration-services-cacd-2024.