Paul Brown, et al v. Ronald Schleuter

Filing

Paul Brown, et al v. Ronald Schleuter

Doc. 0

Case: 10-30157

Document: 00511189680

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/30/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
July 30, 2010 N o . 10-30157 S u m m a r y Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

D A N N Y PRINGLE; PAUL BROWN, P la in t if f s - A p p e lla n t s v. R O N A L D SCHLEUTER, Individually and in his official capacity, on behalf of P o lic e Chief City of Monroe, D e fe n d a n t -A p p e lle e

A p p e a l from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana U .S .D .C . 3:08-CV-01534

B e fo r e REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* P la in t iffs appeal the district court's order granting Defendant's motion for s u m m a r y judgment. The Court reviews de novo the district court's grant of s u m m a r y judgment. In re Egleston, 448 F.3d 803, 809 (5th Cir. 2006); FED. R. C IV. P. 56(c). For the following reasons, we AFFIRM. O n April 19, 2006, Plaintiffs received notice that their colleague had

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-30157

Document: 00511189680

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/30/2010

discovered recording devices in his office, where he and Plaintiffs had conversed o n several occasions. Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant on October 15, 2008, a lle g in g that Defendant had ordered the recording devices to be placed in their c o lle a g u e 's office, and that this action was a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2520, which a u t h o r iz e s civil actions for intentionally intercepting or attempting to intercept " a n y wire, oral, or electronic communication" without previously seeking a u t h o r iz a t io n from a court. 18 U.S.C. § 2520. The district court granted

D e fe n d a n t 's motion for summary judgment be granted because the statute of lim it a t io n s had run before Plaintiffs filed suit. A claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 must be filed within two years "after the d a t e upon which the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the v io la t io n ." 18 U.S.C. § 2520(e). The limitation period begins to run once the p la in t iff has enough notice as would lead a reasonable person to either sue or la u n c h an investigation. Sparshott v. Feld Entm't, Inc., 311 F.3d 425, 429 (D.C. C ir . 2003). P la in t iffs argue that Louisiana law precluded them from gathering p e r t in e n t information regarding the recording devices and their recordings. There is no law that would have that effect. The statute Plaintiffs cite does not p r o h ib it requesting records pertaining to pending criminal litigation; it simply p r o v id e s that disclosure of such records is not required. LA. REV. STAT. tit. 44, § 3(A) (2009). P la in t iffs also argue that there exists a material issue of fact about when th ey knew or could have known when Defendant intercepted their

c o m m u n ic a t io n s . But the officer whose office contained the recording devices c o n t a c t e d Plaintiffs as soon as he discovered them. Plaintiffs further provided s t a t e m e n t s to the Louisiana State Police concerning their friendship with the t a r g e t e d officer and whether they had given permission to be audio taped. Yet 2

Case: 10-30157

Document: 00511189680

Page: 3

Date Filed: 07/30/2010

Plaintiffs never requested any information relating to who was recorded in the t a r g e t officer's office. T h e statute of limitations does not require the claimant to have actual k n o w le d g e of the violation; it demands only that the claimant have had a r e a s o n a b le opportunity to discover it. Sparshott, 311 F.3d at 429. Based on the u n d is p u t e d evidence, Plaintiffs had reasonable opportunity to discover the v io la t io n on or around the discovery of the recording devices. Therefore, the s t a t u t e of limitations had run by the time they brought suit against Defendant, a n d the district court correctly granted Defendant's motion for summary ju d g m e n t. A F F IR M E D .

3