Victoria Pichkurova v. Los Angeles Asylum Office, USCIS

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 14, 2025
Docket8:24-cv-02811
StatusUnknown

This text of Victoria Pichkurova v. Los Angeles Asylum Office, USCIS (Victoria Pichkurova v. Los Angeles Asylum Office, USCIS) 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
Victoria Pichkurova v. Los Angeles Asylum Office, USCIS, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 Case No. SACV 24-02811-(ADSx) 11 VICTORIA PICHKUROVA Plaintiff, 12 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE v. ORDER1 13

14 USCIS LOS ANGELES ASYLUM OFFICE, et al. 15 Defendant(s).

16 17 I. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 18 A. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 19 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 20 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation 21 may be warranted including case-specific, asylum-related, or private 22 23

1 This Stipulated Protective Order is based off the model protective order provided 24 under Magistrate Spaeth’s Requirements and Procedures. 1 information relating to Plaintiff. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and 2 petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 3 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 4 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from 5 public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that

6 are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The 7 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section XIII(C), below, that this 8 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 9 under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 10 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the 11 Court to file material under seal. 12 II. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 13 As contemplated by the parties in their Joint Rule 26(f) Report, Dkt. 13, 14 Defendants anticipate the filing of a Certified Administrative Record of the Plaintiff’s 15 asylum application filed with Defendant United States Citizenship and Immigration 16 Services (the “CAR”). The Court has set a July 14, 2025 order to show cause concerning

17 the filing of the CAR. Dkt. 24. The CAR is likely to contain personally identifiable 18 information and information regarding the Plaintiff’s asylum application including 19 information regarding Plaintiff’s prior persecution and fear of future persecution that is 20 protected by law. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.6 (governing the disclosure of information 21 contained in or pertaining to any asylum application). Disclosure of asylum-related 22 information may subject an asylum applicant to retaliatory measures by government 23 authorities or non-state actors in the event that an asylum applicant is repatriated, or 24 endanger the security of the applicant’s family members still residing in the applicant’s 1 country of origin. See USCIS Fact Sheet: Federal Regulation Protecting the 2 Confidentiality of Asylum Applicants, available at 3 https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/fact-sheets/Asylum- 4 ConfidentialityFactSheet.pdf (last visited May 22, 2025). 5 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt

6 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 7 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 8 permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 9 conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the 10 ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is 11 the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 12 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has 13 been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 14 should not be part of the public record of this case. 15 III. DEFINITIONS 16 A. Action: Victoria Pichkurova v. USCIS Los Angeles Asylum Office, et al., SACV

17 24-02811-ADS 18 B. Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 19 information or items under this Order. 20 C. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of how it is 21 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 23 Statement, including the CAR, and 24 (i) Information, documents or tangible things protected by the Privacy Act, 1 5 U.S.C. § 552a, et seq., or information that would be covered by the 2 Privacy Act if the subject of the information had been a U.S. citizen or a 3 person lawfully admitted for permanent residence; 4 (ii) Information, documents or tangible things—which may include, among 5 other things, Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and

6 Customs Enforcement and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 7 records regarding law enforcement activities and operations, internal 8 policies, processes and procedures, and internal investigations—which 9 contain information that is law enforcement sensitive, for instance, 10 information which would be protected from disclosure under FOIA, 5 11 U.S.C. § 552, et seq., under the exemption found at 5 U.S.C. § 12 552(b)(7)(E). 13 (iii) Information contained in or pertaining to: (1) asylum claims or 14 applications including applications for relief under the Convention 15 Against Torture (“CAT”) and refugee information; and 16 (iv) Any identifying information that is not publicly available and qualifies for

17 protection under applicable law, statutes or regulations (including 8 18 C.F.R. 208.6), including, but not limited to: (i) the names, addresses, date 19 of birth, and “A” number of the particular individual(s) to whom 20 information relates and any other personally identifiable information 21 identified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2; and (ii) any personally 22 identifiable information related to third parties other than the individual 23 whose information is being sought. 24 1

2 D. Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 3 support staff). 4 E. Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information or items 5 that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 6 F. Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless of the 7 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among 8 other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 9 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter, including the CAR. 10 G. Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent 11 to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert 12 witness or as a consultant in this Action. 13 H. House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House 14 Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 15 I. Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other 16 legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

17 J.

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

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Victoria Pichkurova v. Los Angeles Asylum Office, USCIS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/victoria-pichkurova-v-los-angeles-asylum-office-uscis-cacd-2025.