Quick reference for judges on VAWA confidentiality case law that address how federal VAWA confidentiality laws impact state court discovery motions in criminal, civil and family court cases. All cases cited can also be found in NIWAP”s web library by searching the case name.
Topic: Confidentiality Case Law
Materials regarding VAWA confidentiality case law.
[pdf] Romain v. Napolitano (March 16 2012) United States District Court (+)
Romain v Napolitano (March 16 2012), U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York. NIWAP, represented by Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, served as lead amicus in the first VAWA Confidentiality appeal of denial of a criminal court discovery order. This was a case in which a domestic violence perpetrator who was being prosecuted for domestic violence sought discovery under Brady and W.M.V.Crio of the VAWA confidentiality protected VAWA self-petition immigration case filed by his battered immigrant spouse. The perpetrator of spousal rape subpoenaed the
victims VAWA self-petition case from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The Federal District Court ultimately denied the subpoena and discovery of the self-petition file by the criminal defendant
spouse.
[pdf] How to Argue or Rule on VAWA Confidentiality Protections in Discovery Involving Immigrant Survivors (November 18, 2022) (+)
Step-by-step guide for attorneys and judges on VAWA confidentiality and discovery with links to resources, tools, case law, Amicus Briefs, and sample bench briefs and motions.
[pdf] EEOC v. Dimare Ruskin Inc. (February 15, 2012) (+)
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.”
[pdf] EEOC v. First Wireless Group Inc. (November 19, 2004) (+)
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.”
[pdf] EEOC v. Bice of Chicago (July 18, 2005) (+)
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.”
[pdf] Avila-Blum v. Casa De Cambio Delgado Inc. (May 16, 2006) (+)
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.
[pdf] Molnar v. Margaret W. Wong Assocs. Co. L.P.A. (April 22, 2021) (+)
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 […]
[pdf] Guillen v. B.J.C.R. LLC (March 31, 2022) (+)
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 […]
[pdf] Camayo v. John Peroulis Sons Sheep Inc. (November 27, 2012) (+)
[pdf] Washington v. Horning Bros. LLC (May 14, 2018) (+)
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, […]
[pdf] Walsh v. Unforgettable Coatings, Inc. (August 23, 2022) (+)
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 […]
[pdf] Rivera v NIBCO Inc (April 13, 2004) (+)
Protective order issued regarding immigration status.
[pdf] Guardado v. State (2015) (+)
Immigration status alone does not reflect on an individual’s character and is not admissible for impeachment purposes.
[pdf] Diaz Silvas v Horning Brothers Order Granting Protective Order (2018) (+)
Protective order barring U visa discovery granted.
[pdf] Memorandum on People v. Alvarez (March 15, 2019) (+)
This document is for educational use only. The decision did not discuss or pointed out how the defendant knew the victim had applied for a U visa. The decision held that the exclusion of u visa evidence was constitutional and within the court’s discretion. However, VAWA confidentiality is not discussed or presented as an argument before the court.
[pdf] US v. Locascio (October 8, 1993) (+)
In this case, the court found that the prosecution was not in possession of information acquired by federal agencies uninvolved in the state’s investigation or trial.
[pdf] US v. Brown (October 28, 2003) (+)
The court found that the defendant’s right to confront witnesses was not violated when he was denied access to the witness’s immigration file and was not allowed to call an expert witness regarding the unusual immigration circumstances of the witness. The court found that the cross-examination of the witness sufficiently addressed bias/motive.
[pdf] Cazorla v. Koch Foods of Mississippi – 5th Cir ( February 27, 2017) (+)
Federal court decision addressing discoverability of the U Visa certification, the U Visa case file, the VAWA self-petition case file, and other application materials that are protected by VAWA confidentiality.
[pdf] Briggs v. Hedgpeth- 9th Cir ( October 7, 2014) (+)
This document is for educational use only. The case found that it was erroneous to preclude the defense from asking about U visa benefits that were offered to the victim, but also found that it was a harmless error because there was substantial evidence of the crime.
[pdf] Briggs v Hedgpeth – Order Denying Writ of Habeas Corpus (March 19, 2013) (+)
This document is for educational use only. The case found that it was erroneous to preclude the defense from asking about U visa benefits that were offered to the victim, but also found that it was a harmless error because there was substantial evidence of the crime.
[pdf] State v. Marroquin-Aldana (2014) (+)
Access to the U visa certification sufficient giving the defendant opportunity to cross examine. The U visa immigration case file is not discoverable.
[pdf] Hawke vs. U.S. (U.S. District Ct. 2008) (+)
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.
[pdf] Demaj v. Sakaj (March 18, 2013) (+)
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.
[pdf] Utilizing VAWA Confidentiality Protections in Family and Criminal Court Cases (February 17, 2017) (+)
Chapter of a publication on issues that arise in family court cases involving immigrant crime victims pending publication. This chapter discusses VAWA confidentiality protections and their impact in state court proceedings. While the emphasis of the article is on family court cases, the discussion is also useful in criminal court cases. This article discusses the Hawke, Demaj and Koch cases on VAWA confidentiality.
[pdf] EEOC v Koch 5th Circuit Decision (9.27.2016) (+)
Decision of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on VAWA confidentiality protected discovery on federal employment cases.
[pdf] Demaj v. Sakaj, 3:09 CV 255 (JGM), (D. Conn. Feb. 14, 2012) (+)
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.
[pdf] Court Rulings Confirm Federal VAWA Confidentiality Protections Bar Discovery of VAWA Confidentiality Protected Information in State Family Court Proceedings (+)
This factsheet provides an introduction to VAWA confidentiality, an overview of the decisions in Hawke v. United States Department of Homeland Security and Demaj v. Sakaj, and implications of the Hawke and Demaj decisions in state family court cases.
[pdf] Judgment of Hawke v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Services (+)
Federal Court judgment in Mark Hawke v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Services, No. C-07-03456 RMW.
[pdf] Order Denying First Amended Petition of Hawke v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Services (+)
An order denying the first amended petition filed in Mark Hawke v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Services, No. C-07-03456 RMW.
[pdf] Court Decision Interprets VAWA Confidentiality Provisions (+)
A summary of the decision in Hawke v. Department of Homeland Security, a case of first impression on the issue of VAWA confidentiality.