I came across this interesting settlement between the U.S. Government and nearly a dozen Latino immigrants. The lawsuit alleged that immigration agents committed widespread 4th Amendment violations when conducting home raids of immigrants.
One plaintiff alleged that ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents pounded on doors before being allowed entry, swept through the homes, and terrorized the children. The immigrants were U.S. citizens. Another plaintiff alleged that when the home raids occurred she was 12-years old and that after busting in the ICE agents falsely told her “someone was dying upstairs.”
The District court approved of the stipulation and ordered the dismissal of the lawsuit.
Pursuant to the stipulation, the government will pay a $1 million settlement. The settlement also provides that pending immigration proceedings will be terminated or delayed against eight (8) of the plaintiffs arrested during the raids.
Further, ICE will adopt policy changes for agents conducting warrantless home operations. ICE agents must:
- “seek consent to enter or search a private residence in a language understood by the resident whenever feasible;
- they must have Spanish-speaking officers available to seek such consent when the target is from a Spanish-speaking country;
- they must seek consent to to enter the outside areas of homes when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a backyard; and
- they must not conduct protective sweeps through the homes without an articulable suspicion of danger.”
(bullet points added).
via Courthouse News Service.
Electronic discovery and electronic stored information are very important topics for everyone – employes, law firms, lawsuits, etc. The Sedona Conference should be the first step you take when trying to get a better handle in the area of electronic discovery and electronic stored information.
I bring to your attention the website that lists all of the Sedona Conference’s publications.
Recently, the Sedona Conferenced uploaded its post-comments publication in the area of proportionality of costs. This is an important publication because the proportionality of costs will influence who pays for the costs of discovery and what is a reasonable request. In other words, defining what is an undue burden and expense.
Publications | The Sedona Conference®.
This is an interesting case, coming out of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, that reinforces the idea that attorney fees should only be granted to the prevailing party.
In S. Wine and Spirits of Nevada v. Mountain Valley Spring Co., No. 12-1857 (8th Cir. 2013), the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that neither of the parties prevailed in the lawsuit. Thereby, no attorney fees would be granted.
So why did this case come to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals? Southern Wine and Spirits won a judgement for $861,000. In the same token, Mountain Valley won a judgment of $183,000. Southern argued that it was entitled to attorney fees because it had prevailed on 3 out of its 4 claims and because its monetary award was more than four times larger than the one obtained by Mountain Valley.
The District Court and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Following Nevada law, a party is not the “prevailing party” when both parties are found to be at fault. See also Glenbrook Homeowners Ass’n v. Glenbrook Co., 901 P.2d 132, 141 (Nev. 1995) (per curiam).
Thereby, in this case, when both parties won a judgment, it is fair to say that both parties have been found at fault.