Entering a protective order on discovery into the claimants’ immigration status because “[t]he EEOC’s mission of protecting victims of employment discrimination would be hampered if potential victims are unwilling to come forward and cooperate because of fear of removal or other immigration consequences.”

Upholding protective order on discovery into immigration status because such inquiries “would significantly discourage employees from bringing actions against their employers who engage in discriminatory employment practices.”

Entering a protective order prohibiting discovery into immigration status because “questions about immigration status are oppressive, they constitute a substantial burden on the parties and on the public interest and they would have a chilling effect on victims of employment discrimination from coming forward to assert discrimination claims.”

Approving of the magistrate judge’s protective order prohibiting questions on immigration status during the plaintiff’s deposition and explaining that such questions could chill employment discrimination cases.

The Court of Appeals found that in cases where the victim obtained the U visa and permanent resident status because of egregious legal malpractice committed by the victims’ former attorneys, defendants were entitled to obtain that information in order to prepare a defense. The Court observed that at the time the trial court ruled on […]

In a motion to compel production of plaintiff’s immigration records, the Court found the U Visa information was relevant to plaintiff’s motive and potentially probative of fraud because plaintiff appeared to acknowledge the relevance of the documents as she agreed to request them from USCIS and produce them subject to a tailored protective order; Defendant's […]

The Court granted the Plaintiffs- Intervenors’ request for a protective order prohibiting discovery of their U visa immigration status. The Court weighed Plaintiffs-Intervenor’s fears for themselves and others of possible detention, removal, criminal prosecution, and job loss if forced to disclose U visa information. The Court held that the “[…] chilling effect, public policy concerns, […]

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)action where the Court found that although Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause to limit the deposition of the Department of Labor’s Regional Coordinator for Workplace Crimes, defendants have the right to explore inconsistencies with plaintiff’s statements in regard to immigration applications on a limited basis. The Court found that the deposition […]

This case concluded that VAWA Confidentiality protects all cases unless it’s denied on the merits. The 6th Amendment right to compulsory process does not permit access to absolutely privileged information, and judicial exception applies to appeal victim’s immigration case, not state family, civil, or criminal cases.

The case found that seeking VAWA confidentiality protected information through custody case discovery is barred by federal statute, and VAWA confidentiality applies even when the victim disclosed that their crime victim related immigration case was approved.