Private prison operator Geo Group urged a Colorado federal judge to deny immigrant detainees' request to show jurors the inside of its detention facility in a trafficking case, including the size of housing units, arguing Wednesday the facility's size will not be relevant when determining whether detainees performed forced labor.

In an eight-page motion, attorneys for Geo Group opposed the detainees' bid, filed in November, asking to show jurors the Aurora, Colorado, detention center's housing facilities, solitary confinement sections and areas where detainees worked, like the laundry and kitchen.

The lawsuit, filed a decade ago, alleges that detainees at the Aurora detention facility were ordered to clean up the facility for free in violation of the Traffic Victims Protection Act, while others earned just a dollar per day in a voluntary work program at the unjust enrichment of Geo Group.

The detainees alleged that the areas were critical to their claims alleging they were forced to work for little to no pay; allowing jurors to see them in person could help them decide whether the threat of solitary confinement if detainees refused to work amounted to forced labor under the TVPA. The detainees also noted that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement does not oppose the motion, on the condition that the plaintiffs will not try to create new videos or photos of the facility.

On Tuesday, Geo Group contended there is already ample evidence to show jurors the detention facility, including a short video, floor plans, photos, and witness testimony, which means the existing evidence would negate the need for jurors to look at the site in person.

"The issue of whether detainee labor was forced or created a scenario of unjust enrichment is largely detached from the scale and size of the facility," Tuesday's motion said. "Instead, the jury's decision will be guided by plaintiff's stated motivations for performing work and the relevant policies at the facility. The ultimate decision by the jury does not hinge on whether a detainee cleaned an area that felt cramped or expansive—it matters why they cleaned in the first place."

Nor would a juror's inability to read a floor plan stop them from understanding how large a space is when they will also be provided with photos and testimony about the space, Geo Group argued.

Furthermore, showing jurors the site in person would result in minimal probative value, Geo Group argued. The crux of the dispute in the trial is not premised on how big the housing units are, but whether the detainees performed forced labor, the motion added.

That means the size of a cell or housing unit will not really assist jurors in deciding a detainee's motive for working within the facility, Geo Group said.

Allowing the visit could also risk juror bias against Geo Group, as protesters often target the detention site and there have been escalating incidents of disturbances that would disrupt the viewing for jurors, Geo Group argued, adding that it has no control over whether protesters or media would arrive the day of the viewing.

Facilitating an in-person viewing of the detention facility would also be inconvenient, as the site is about 20 miles from the courthouse, and each juror must be pre-screened at least 72 hours before the visit, for security reasons, Geo Group added. Taking the trip would take a minimum of half a trial day, plus additional time for pre-screening and jury concerns, along with hours of preparation, the company said.

The case, filed in 2014, is on the path to a jury trial after the Tenth Circuit's decision earlier this year finding that Geo Group jumped the gun with its appeal of a Colorado district court's ruling that the private prison company cannot be shielded by derivative sovereign immunity from human-trafficking claims brought by detainees.

Detainees have brought similar actions in California, Georgia and Washington, where the Washington Supreme Court said last year that civil detainees working at a privately run facility are considered employees and thus entitled to the state minimum wage following a $23 million trial verdict in their favor.

Representatives for the defendants did not immediately respond to inquiries seeking comment Thursday.

Plaintiffs' counsel Michael J. Scimone of Outten & Golden LLP told Law360 on Thursday he didn't have a statement but said the plaintiffs will be responding to GEO's brief by Jan. 25, 2025.

The detainees are represented by Michael J. Scimone and Adam Koshkin of Outten & Golden LLP, David Seligman, Juno Turner, Alexander Hood, Rachel Dempsey and Brianne Power of Towards Justice, Andrew Turner and Brandt Milstein of Milstein Turner PLLC and Hans Meyer of Meyer Law Office PC.

The Geo Group Inc. is represented by Adrienne Scheffey, Dana L. Eismeier and Michael Y. Ley of Burns Figa & Will PC and in-house by Joseph Negron and Scott Schipma.

The case is Menocal et al. v. The Geo Group Inc., case number 1:14-cv-02887, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

--Additional reporting by Britain Eakin and Daniela Porat. Editing by Vaqas Asghar.

Update: This article has been updated with a statement from the plaintiffs' counsel.