440 F.Supp.3d 692
W.D. Ky.2020Background
- In Aug 2016, opposing counsel in a state-court case subpoenaed Bluegrass Cellular for Petty’s cell-phone records (including texts); Bluegrass produced the records to that counsel.
- Bluegrass contends Petty received notice and the produced records in Aug–Sep 2016 and saw texts used at a Nov 2016 hearing; Petty says she did not learn of the production until Mar 20, 2017.
- Petty filed a pro se complaint in federal court on Mar 18, 2019 asserting (1) a Stored Communications Act (SCA) claim and (2) state-law torts (invasion of privacy and outrageous conduct/IIED).
- Bluegrass moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the claims are time-barred and that the SCA preempts Petty’s state-law claims.
- The Court evaluated whether the complaint "affirmatively showed" a time-bar bar and whether §2708 of the SCA preempts state-law remedies.
- The Court denied Bluegrass’s motion to dismiss: factual disputes precluded finding the SCA claim time-barred at this stage; state tort claims were governed by longer statutes of limitations and not preempted by the SCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| SCA statute of limitations (18 U.S.C. §2707(f)) | Petty: she first discovered the violation on Mar 20, 2017, so her Mar 18, 2019 filing is timely | Bluegrass: Petty had notice or a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation in Aug–Nov 2016, so suit is untimely | Denied dismissal; factual dispute over discovery prevents ruling the SCA claim time-barred at 12(b)(6) |
| Invasion of privacy — applicable statute of limitations | Petty: did not plead defamation; invasion claim stands on its own | Bluegrass: invasion claims commonly carry a one‑year SOL (argues it applies here) | Court: one‑year SOL applies when invasion claim "springs from" defamation; here Petty did not plead defamation, so five‑year SOL applies |
| Outrageous conduct / IIED — applicable statute of limitations | Petty: alleges severe emotional distress from disclosure | Bluegrass: claim tied to same conduct as SCA/invasion and thus should be governed by shorter SOLs | Court: claim is a traditional intentional emotional‑distress tort; five‑year SOL applies |
| Preemption by the SCA (§2708) | Petty: state-law remedies remain available (implicitly) | Bluegrass: §2708 makes SCA remedies exclusive for nonconstitutional violations, preempting state-law claims | Court: declined to find express preemption; followed authority interpreting §2708 narrowly and denied dismissal on preemption grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Warshak v. United States, 532 F.3d 521 (6th Cir. 2008) (describing SCA’s protections and scope)
- Cataldo v. U.S. Steel Corp., 676 F.3d 542 (6th Cir. 2012) (statute-of-limitations affirmative defense may justify 12(b)(6) dismissal only when complaint shows claim is time-barred)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (labels-and-conclusions insufficient under Rule 8)
- National Sec. Agency Telecomm. Records Litig., 483 F. Supp. 2d 934 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (interpreting §2708’s legislative history to reject broad preemption of state-law claims)
- Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., Inc., 445 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (held SCA preemption; cited by defendant but courts have split)
- Branham v. Micro Computer Analysts, [citation="350 F. App'x 35"] (6th Cir. 2009) (invasion-of-privacy claims that "spring from" defamation are governed by defamation’s one‑year SOL)
- Craft v. Rice, 671 S.W.2d 247 (Ky. 1984) (Kentucky recognizes five‑year SOL for intentional emotional‑distress/outrageous conduct claims)