Rubicon wants testimonies of workers preserved before they return to home countries

SALT LAKE CITY — The owners of a Davis County general contracting company once accused of labor trafficking want to preserve the testimonies of their former workers before they are required to return to their home countries.

In November 2023, the founders and five executive members of Rubicon Contracting were each charged with multiple counts of aggravated human trafficking by the Utah Attorney General’s Office. In February 2025, the state’s case was dismissed in light of a pending federal investigation.

Other Utah news: West Nile virus detected in Davis County mosquitoes

In April, however, the federal investigation into Rubicon was also closed with no charges being filed.

In October 2025, Rubicon filed a $1 billion civil lawsuit in federal court against then-Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes and three of his staff members, claiming the team “conspired to manufacture bogus criminal charges” against the company.

According to Rubicon, now that there are no active investigations into the company, a temporary “Continued Presence” grant that allowed the workers who were allegedly trafficked to stay in Utah and the U.S. while the investigations transpired will be allowed to expire on Feb. 6, 2027.

“Key witnesses in this case — H-2B visa workers that defendants falsely claimed were being trafficked by (Rubicon) — are currently present in the United States on temporary visas that will soon expire, compelling them to return to their home countries and making them unavailable for examination in this country,” according to the motion.

“Once these witnesses depart, no subpoena can reach them,” Rubicon said in a prepared statement.

On Tuesday, Rubicon and its owners, Rudy and Jena Larsen, filed a motion in federal court asking for an expedited process to take recorded sworn testimonies from key witnesses before they return to their homes and to hold onto those interviews for future court proceedings. Rubicon’s attorneys want to depose 18 witnesses and have agreed to keep their testimonies sealed until the defense’s motion to have the case dismissed is resolved.

In their motion, Rubicon contends that the Utah Attorney General’s Office “needed funding for its SECURE Strike Force, the unit tasked with investigating and prosecuting human trafficking cases,” and that “every trafficking victim the attorney general’s office could certify would provide federal grant money, so the attorney general’s office created ‘victims.'”

Rubicon, however, says that it not only paid workers more than what they were legally required to do, but the company also provided care packages, housing and paid for travel, the motion states. While the criminal cases against Rubicon were still pending, the company says one worker who left asked to come back and others referred their families and friends to apply.

“Workers who encourage friends and relatives to apply and who themselves re-apply to work with (Rubicon) are not human trafficking victims,” the motion contends.

“This case has never been about avoiding scrutiny — it is about demanding accountability,” Cameron Drommond, vice president of marketing at Scandia Company LLC, said in a prepared statement. Scandia is Rubicon’s parent company and also a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

“Put the state’s witnesses under oath. Let the defendants cross-examine every one of them. We are asking for the one thing a manufactured case cannot survive: the witnesses, on the record … The court should hear that from the workers themselves, under oath, while it still can,” his statement continued.

In his motion to have the case dismissed, Reyes contends that all four defendants named in the lawsuit have either qualified and/or prosecutorial immunity.

“The complaint does its best to smear prosecutor (Kaytlin Virginia) Beckett and demonize her actions in the state criminal case against plaintiffs. But even if that extreme rhetoric is assumed to be true at this stage of the proceedings, all claims alleged against her fail as a matter of law under the doctrine of absolute prosecutorial immunity,” the motion states.