Clustered 3 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Oct 23, 2023 → Aug 7, 2024. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_e1815a691e2f47da · merge_method human · confidence 100%
Gap between first leak claim and first regulatory filing
Time between earliest and latest filing
Not recorded for this incident
Discovery variance · Materiality delta · SEC filing delay — no SEC 8-K in this cluster; needs two dated filings.
CA
Leak Site · State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Aug 12, 2023 → Sep 26, 2023
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Located in Southern California at the high-point between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, Victorville is the leading city for both industry and retail in the High Desert region. ...
The City of Victorville, California notified residents of a cybersecurity incident where an unauthorized actor accessed files containing personal information between August 12, 2023, and September 26, 2023. Affected data included names, Social Security numbers, driver's license/state ID numbers, medical information, and health insurance policy numbers. The City secured its network, engaged a cybersecurity firm, and offered one year of complimentary Experian IdentityWorks Credit 3B identity protection services.
The City of Victorville, California experienced a cybersecurity incident in which an unauthorized actor gained access to files within the city's network between August 12 and September 26, 2023. The city engaged a cybersecurity firm, secured the network, and reviewed impacted files. Affected individuals were notified and offered one year of complimentary Experian IdentityWorks Credit 3B identity monitoring services.
About this clustering
DisclosureLens links filings into incidents through layered matchers: deterministic rules (same source document, multistate filings of one breach, tight-window same-victim pairs), a weighted-similarity scorer for cross-source candidates, and an operator review queue for everything uncertain. Each link records its own method and confidence — shown per filing in the timeline below. The system defaults to NOT merging when uncertain, because a false merge (collapsing two unrelated breaches) is more harmful than a false split (showing related filings separately); uncertain pairs route to human review instead of auto-merging. Filing summaries shown in the timeline are AI-generated extracts — verify each against its linked source.