On Oct. 15, 2008, plaintiff Rong Dong Li, a man in his 40s, was assaulted while being detained in a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility, in El Centro. Prior to being detained, Li, who legally emigrated from the People’s Republic of China, was attempting to start a business in Mexico. When it did not work out, Li illegally crossed into the United States, as he did not want to return to China. As a result, he was detained by ICE. On Oct. 15, 2008, while staying at the ICE facility, Li went to the bathroom and noticed two other detainees in an altercation. The center was outfitted with security guards from Akal Security Inc., which contracted with ICE to provide security at the center. As a result, Li alerted the security guards, who came to stop the fight and remove the detainees from the scene. A few minutes later, as Li finished in the bathroom, he was assaulted by one of the previously removed detainees and another detainee. He claimed to his face and body. Li sued Akal Security Inc. The operator of the ICE facility, the United States of America; Robin Baker, in his official capacity as the Field Office Director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and unknown ICE Officials were later added to the complaint as defendants. However, the new defendants were ultimately dismissed, and the two detainees were never identified by ICE or named in the lawsuit. Thus, the matter continued against Akal Security only. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that Akal Security was negligent for failing to prevent the initial fight with the two detainees and for not coming immediately when Li initially alerted them by yelling for them. Counsel also argued that Akal Security was negligent because the security guards knew the two detainees were dangerous because of the prior altercation, and because the security guards should have known to segregate them from others and keep them away from Li, as well. Defense counsel argued that the two detainees that assaulted Li were negligent and that Li could not show that an agent of Akal Security was negligent. Counsel added that the two detainees that assaulted Li were wearing uniforms, indicating that they were classified as nonviolent detainees. Thus, defense counsel argued that the assault was unforeseeable., Li sustained abrasions, a loss of a tooth, and a facial fracture. He subsequently went to a medical facility, where he discovered that he could not see out of his right eye. He contended that he was punched on the left side of the face and that the force impacted the optic nerve for the opposite eye, causing vision loss in his right eye. Thus, Li alleged that he lost sight in the right eye due to the assault that the security guards failed to prevent. The plaintiff’s ophthalmology expert testified that Li was hit all over the face and that even though it was not in Li’s medical records, he believed Li. The expert also testified that because Li was struck all over his face, it could have resulted in the optic nerve damage that Li sustained, causing Li to be blinded in the right eye. Thus, the ophthalmology expert opined that Li suffered indirect traumatic optic neuropathy. In addition, Li claimed that he suffered from emotional distress as a result of the incident. Defense counsel argued that Li’s vision loss was attributed to glaucoma and not blunt force trauma. Counsel contended that Li’s medical records showed that he had severe glaucoma in both eyes and that Li would lose his vision eventually. Counsel also contended that the altercation alerted Li to losing his vision and, therefore, saved the vision for his other eye. The defense’s ophthalmology expert opined that the optic nerve can be damaged by force, but that it would have to occur directly to the forehead. However, the expert testified that there was no evidence that there was direct contact with Li’s forehead and that the facial fracture was on the opposite side of Li’s head/eye.