212 A.3d 594
R.I.2019Background
- Boudreau worked for ATC from Sept. 2009 until June 2011; ATC installed System Surveillance Pro (SSP) on his work computer, capturing screenshots and sending them to ATC-managed email, which were later disclosed to police and led to his arrest and conviction for possession of child pornography.
- At an unemployment hearing on Jan. 24, 2012, ATC president Lussier testified under oath that tracking software had been installed and that logs were emailed to him and ATC’s IT person; plaintiff attended and later testified he first learned of the software at that hearing.
- Plaintiff sued in federal court (alleging ECPA violations); the district court granted summary judgment and the First Circuit affirmed. Plaintiff then filed a 2016 state-court action asserting claims under the Rhode Island Wiretap Act, Computer Crime Act, Software Fraud Act, and related state-law torts and privacy statutes.
- The district court dismissed federal claims as time‑barred and remanded state claims; the Superior Court converted ATC’s motion to dismiss into a summary‑judgment motion and granted judgment for defendants, holding plaintiff’s state claims were barred by the 3‑year statute of limitations (G.L. § 9‑1‑14(b)), or alternatively that plaintiff discovered his claims by Jan. 24, 2012.
- Plaintiff appealed, arguing the discovery rule, fraudulent concealment (G.L. § 9‑1‑20), and the continuing‑violation doctrine should toll the limitations period; the Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of § 9‑1‑14(b) and discovery rule to computer‑crime claims | Discovery rule should toll accrual until after Aug. 2013 because plaintiff learned full software details later | § 9‑1‑14(b) applies; plaintiff had knowledge of injury by arrest and certainly by Jan. 24, 2012 unemployment hearing | Court: § 9‑1‑14(b) governs; discovery rule not applicable or, at latest, accrual occurred Jan. 24, 2012, so claims filed Aug. 2016 are time‑barred |
| Fraudulent concealment tolling under § 9‑1‑20 | ATC (Sorel/Lussier) made misrepresentations about SSP functions/capabilities in federal litigation, so concealment tolled limitations | No evidence of express misrepresentation to plaintiff; ATC disclosed installation at unemployment hearing | Court: No factual misrepresentation to plaintiff; mere nondisclosure of software details is not § 9‑1‑20 concealment; tolling denied |
| Continuing‑violation doctrine for Rhode Island Wiretap Act claim | Even if interception was discrete in 2011, ATC’s later uses of the recordings in litigation (2012–2018) are continuing violations that should toll limitations until last use | The interception/install in June 2011 was a discrete act; subsequent uses are consequences, not recurring tortious acts | Court: Continuing‑violation doctrine does not apply; the 2011 installation was the discrete wrong and limitations are not tolled |
| Adequacy of summary‑judgment procedure (Rule 56) / need for discovery | Plaintiff contends he needed discovery before conversion of motion to summary judgment | Court noted plaintiff requested conversion and gave no Rule 56(f) affidavit; he did not seek continuance | Court: Issue waived; plaintiff did not comply with Rule 56(f) or seek continuance, so summary judgment procedure was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Commerce Oil Refining Corporation v. Miner, 199 A.2d 606 (R.I. 1964) (defines "injuries to the person" under § 9‑1‑14 as including nonphysical invasions of personal rights)
- McNulty v. Chip, 116 A.3d 173 (R.I. 2015) (explains discovery‑rule tolling standard and objective reasonable‑diligence test)
- Hill v. Rhode Island State Employees' Retirement Board, 935 A.2d 608 (R.I. 2007) (limits application of discovery rule; tolling only in narrow circumstances)
- Benner v. J.H. Lynch & Sons, Inc., 641 A.2d 332 (R.I. 1994) (discovery‑rule accrual is a question of law for the court)
- Hyde v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, 139 A.3d 452 (R.I. 2016) (elements required to prove fraudulent concealment under § 9‑1‑20)
- Ryan v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, 941 A.2d 174 (R.I. 2008) (section 9‑1‑20 tolling principles; silence generally insufficient for concealment)
- Croce v. State, Office of Adjutant General, 881 A.2d 75 (R.I. 2005) (continuing‑violation doctrine inapplicable where underlying act is a discrete administrative act)
- DeLong v. Rhode Island Sports Center, Inc., 182 A.3d 1129 (R.I. 2018) (standard of review for summary judgment)