2011 IL App (2d) 101257
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Borchers sued Mayslake for violations of the Stored Communications Act and intrusion upon seclusion after Mayslake employees accessed her personal emails and printed 36 pages.
- Policy evidence showed Mayslake’s computer-use policy stated emails were Mayslake property and that users had no privacy expectations.
- Maxwell (Frigo’s administrative assistant) accessed Borchers’s AOL email account on a food-service computer and printed about 36 emails.
- Frigo and Dreffein observed and later shared the printouts with Mayslake’s counsel; printouts included Borchers’s personal and non-work-related emails.
- Initial circuit court dismissal granted against Mayslake on some claims and dismissed intrusion claim for lack of attached printouts; later Borchers amended the complaint and added Frigo and Maxwell.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Mayslake on the issue of intent and dismissed Frigo and Maxwell under 2-619 for untimeliness, prompting Borchers’s appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on intent was proper | Borchers argued genuine issues about intent remained. | Mayslake contended no intentional access proven by Frigo/Maxwell deposition. | Issue of material fact on intent exists; summary judgment reversed as to Mayslake. |
| Whether 2-616(d) relation back applies to Frigo and Maxwell | Lacked knowledge initially; relation back should preserve timeliness. | Frigo/Maxwell not timely or properly noticed; relation back improper. | 2-616(d) applies; claims against Frigo related back; Maxwell lacks timely notice. |
| Whether Maxwell had notice within the statutory period for relation back | Notice can be imputable via employer and same attorney. | Maxwell lacked actual/constructive notice within period; relation back fails for Maxwell. | Maxwell did not have timely notice; relation back not granted for Maxwell. |
| Whether Frigo's relation back is valid given Borchers’s knowledge of his involvement | Amendment should relate back despite pre-suit knowledge as to Frigo. | Pre-suit knowledge undermines relation back. | Relation back valid for Frigo; claims timely as to Frigo. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cardamone, 232 Ill.2d 504 (2009) (intent questions; credibility of motives at issue)
- Schroeder v. Winyard, 375 Ill.App.3d 358 (2007) (intent and willful actions; summary judgment contexts)
- Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 140 Ill.App.3d 857 (1986) (intent as a question of fact)
- Compton v. Ubilluz, 351 Ill.App.3d 223 (2004) (relation back; modernization to Rule 15(c) analog in 2-616(d))
- Maggi v. RAS Development, Inc., 2011 IL App (1st) 091955 (2011) (Krupski-inspired approach to relation back; lack of knowledge qualifies as mistake)
- Garvin v. City of Philadelphia, 354 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2003) (constructive notice theories and third-party notice limits)
- Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2007) ( Rule 15(c) relation back flexibility and notice/prejudice balance)