Securus Prison Call Recording Class Action Settlement Gets OK

A federal judge has granted preliminary approval to a settlement set to resolve claims that Securus Technologies recorded prisoner calls.

On June 16, U.S. District Judge Jeffery T. Miller granted preliminary approval to the Securus class action settlement, finding that the terms of the settlement are reasonable. Although several minor revisions were made to the settlement agreement, the deal will move forward.

“The court therefore preliminarily finds that the settlement of the action […] are fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the class members, taking into consideration the benefits to class members; the strength and weaknesses of Plaintiffs’ case; the complexity, expense and probable duration of further litigation; and the risk and delay inherent in possible appeals,” Judge Miller wrote in his preliminary approval order.

The preliminarily approved Securus class action settlement aims to benefit a Class of California inmates who participated in a phone call between an imprisoned person and that person’s attorney between July 10, 2008 and June 16, 2020.

Although the plaintiffs originally sought up to $5,000 per violation, the Securus class action settlement does not provide any monetary relief.

Instead, Securus has agreed to beef up their security protocols in addition to submitting compliance reports twice a year to show that confidential calls are not being recorded.

Security measures reportedly promise to implement a “private call” feature for inmates as well as call recording prompts at the beginning of calls, in compliance with California law.

Though the settlement doesn’t provide any monetary relief, the plaintiffs’ settlement motion noted that the deal is fair. In fact, the motion said that the Securus class action settlement “was reached only after the parties were well-informed of all relevant facts and the strengths and weaknesses of plaintiffs’ case — and of Securus’s defenses — and after plaintiffs’ counsel could be reasonably certain that the deal represents the best possible result for the class given the circumstances of this case.”

Securus reportedly has similar motivations for settling the case against them. The company has conceded that some of their inmates’ calls were recorded due to a software glitch, but hasn’t admitted to violating the law. Although their stance means that showing intent in violating the law “could be a challenging burden of proof” for the plaintiffs, the settlement motion noted that resolving the case is a good idea.

“Securus recognizes that the defense of this litigation will be protracted and expensive,” the settlement motion stated.

“Substantial amounts of time, energy, and resources of Securus have been, and unless this settlement is made, will continue to be devoted to the defense of the claims asserted by plaintiffs.”

Class Members will not be able to recover monetary compensation, but the settlement deal does include $840,000 in attorneys’ fees and up to $20,000 for each Class representative.

Settlement Class Members can object to the settlement or exclude themselves from the deal, but must do so within 75 days following the preliminary approval order – or by Aug. 30.

A final approval hearing for the settlement has been scheduled for Sept. 28, 2020.

The Securus class action lawsuit was filed by a two former inmates of the San Diego County Central Jail and their criminal defense attorney.

According to the plaintiffs, Securus illegally recorded calls between the parties through their “Secure Call Platform,” which is prominent in jails and prisons across the country.

Although Securus reportedly promised that they do not record confidential calls between prisoners and attorneys, the plaintiffs claim that, “in reality, Securus does eavesdrop on, listen in on, record, and store private and confidential attorney-client phone calls without permission of all parties, and Securus shares access and recordings with law enforcement personnel, including prosecutors.”

Plaintiffs claimed that the call recording violated California’s Invasion of Privacy Act and several other laws. The Invasion of Privacy Act is one of California’s strongest laws – prohibiting the recording of phone calls without the consent of all parties. Additionally, the law makes it illegal to record conversations between prisoners and a variety of other individuals including their attorneys, physicians or clerics.

Will you benefit from the Securus class action settlement? Let us know in the comments section below.

Top Class Actions will post updates to this class action settlement as they become available. For the latest updates, keep checking TopClassActions.com or sign up for our free newsletter. You can also receive notifications when this article is updated by using your free Top Class Actions account and clicking the “Follow Article” button at the top of the post.

The Class is represented by Nicholas J. Fox and Eileen R. Ridley of Foley & Lardner LLP, Robert L. Teel of the Law Office of Robert L. Teel and Ronald A. Marron of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron APLC.

The Securus Call Recording Class Action Lawsuit is Romero, et al. v. Securus Technologies Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-01283, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Televangelist Jim Bakker Sued For Fake COVID-19 Cure

COVID-19 Class Action Says Test Wasn’t ‘100% Accurate’

Is Uber Safe to Take Alone? 

Plaintiffs Want Cases Consolidated in Zantac Cancer Scare Litigation