212 A.3d 594
R.I.2019Background
- Boudreau worked for Automatic Temperature Controls, Inc. (ATC) from 2009–2011. ATC installed System Surveillance Pro (SSP) on his work computer in June 2011; screenshots/logs were captured and later provided to Warwick police, leading to his arrest and conviction for possession of child pornography.
- At a January 24, 2012 unemployment-hearing, ATC’s president, Lussier, testified under oath that tracking software had been installed and that logs were emailed to management and to police; Boudreau attended that hearing.
- Boudreau sued in federal court (alleging ECPA violations); summary judgment for defendants was affirmed by the First Circuit in 2018. He later sued in Superior Court (2016) under various Rhode Island statutes (Computer Crime Act, Software Fraud Act, Wiretap Act) and state common-law theories.
- The Superior Court converted ATC’s motion to dismiss to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment and held Boudreau’s state-law claims time barred under the 3-year limitations period, finding (at latest) accrual by January 24, 2012 and no fraudulent concealment.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed: discovery rule did not postpone accrual past January 24, 2012; no evidence of express fraudulent concealment; and the continuing-violation doctrine did not apply to the Wiretap Act claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of the discovery rule to toll statute of limitations for computer-crime claims | Discovery rule should toll accrual until after Aug 2013 because Boudreau only learned the software’s name/functions then | Claims accrued when injury was known or reasonably discoverable (by arrest and certainly by Jan 24, 2012 hearing) | Court: discovery rule inapplicable here; accrual occurred no later than Jan 24, 2012; claims time barred under § 9-1-14(b) |
| Fraudulent concealment tolling under § 9-1-20 | ATC misrepresented or hid software functions/capabilities in federal litigation, so statute should be tolled | No express misrepresentation to Boudreau; mere nondisclosure of technical details is insufficient | Court: no evidence of actual misrepresentation to Boudreau; tolling via § 9-1-20 denied |
| Continuing-violation doctrine for Wiretap Act claim | Even if interception was single in 2011, subsequent uses of recordings in later litigation are continuing violations that toll limitations | The interception was a discrete act in June 2011; later uses are consequences of that act and do not reset the limitations period | Court: continuing-violation doctrine does not apply; initial installation/interception was discrete and triggered the limitations period |
| Denial of time for discovery before conversion to summary judgment | Boudreau contends he was entitled to additional discovery under Rule 56(f) | ATC and the court relied on the existing record; Boudreau requested conversion to summary judgment and did not file a Rule 56(f) affidavit | Court: issue not preserved—Boudreau asked for conversion and did not obey Rule 56(f); no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Benner v. J.H. Lynch & Sons, Inc., 641 A.2d 332 (R.I. 1994) (discovery-rule questions are legal issues for the trial justice to decide)
- McNulty v. Chip, 116 A.3d 173 (R.I. 2015) (reasonableness standard for when a plaintiff should have discovered injury)
- Hill v. Rhode Island State Employees’ Retirement Board, 935 A.2d 608 (R.I. 2007) (general accrual and limits on discovery-rule tolling)
- Commerce Oil Refining Corp. v. Miner, 199 A.2d 606 (R.I. 1964) (definition of "injuries to the person" and scope of § 9-1-14)
- Croce v. State, Office of Adjutant General, 881 A.2d 75 (R.I. 2005) (continuing-violation doctrine inapplicable to discrete, one-time administrative acts)
- Narragansett Elec. Co. v. Carbone, 898 A.2d 87 (R.I. 2006) (application of continuing-tort doctrine where wrongful conduct was ongoing)