oral or electronic communication singular any communication so any communication is intercepted would constitute a violation on its own and that matters because the statute of limitations starts running when of the plaintiff st time the reasonable opportunity to discover you violation not a series of calls not in course of conduct but the  recover for calls prior to two years before you filed the complaint or you were really just talking about the calls that were within two years of when the complaint was file so i want to press you on both ends of the oneness i wonder whether you're big to reasonable on the other is i wonder being reasonable not so on the two reasonable par why are you alleging that when your client five hundred and two eight thousand recordings on june th that the statute would begin to run on that day i mean that i deal with a lot of criminal discovery in my work and it takes forever to go through a one thousand recordings is there some in next year or something that would have allowed her instantly to know that she had been recalled she had been reported for criminal conversations and there are no i agree with you just felt that that there is no way for her to actually have reviewed that information there is no way that she had actual knowledge and there is no way that anything about that production in could do something to give her consent to being recorded but but i me ask whether it should be earlier than that every time your client had a conversation she heard a recording that told her we might be recording this conversation isn't that at least put her on inquiry notice that she might be getting requests so true  that notice and this has to be explored in discovery and i want to come back to that this notice we had a life was just human form we insufficient because it was qualified it said subject to monitoring th the other point is that even if it was the bast most clear notice that it could be the only thing that it could do on the limitations period is give her notice of violations that have already occurred because of the way the statute is was you look at what the violation and it is and this goes back to the relationship between accrual and the statute of limitations generally speaking the statute doesn't start running she makes the call and she hears a recording saying that the call is subject to being recorded by us i think that probably puts her on inquiry notice as of then i don't think i'm suggesting that the statute would have been running before june th on the presumed twenty seven dollars paul i agree with you that it would be odd to say a statue limitations began running on a call that had been taking place so i'm with you on that so i don't i don't think we have a this idea of whether there was sufficient notice and having that in order in just reading i know that the court had asked the question about whether there was an interception and there's a part of you supplemental for you touched on the merits these issues i just want to highlight for the court here but of course to that st responded to written discovery in this case on january th two thousand and nineteen and moved for summary judgment approximately twenty one reported and potentially up to thirty thousand or at this location but we have not fixed or that we don't have all discovery on the extent of this notice of whether it was sufficient or not we don't have full discovery on this idea that people to stay out of having their culture for it is always they put in the fact that nine hundred tens of thousands slip through the cracks is a question of fact and i say all of that because if the court is inclined to  those types of data including whether somebody went back and listen to those calls whether they were disclosed which are things we have alleged but not one word in our group if the court is inclined to use those facts as relevance to a interception as long as you raise the what do you do what do we do with this greenfield case part of your response was that it's wrong and and and i don't mean it could be it could not be that we don't we don't get that we don't get to be ignored because it's wrong what's the next best market so the next best argument is that it is limited to just shelves and it is limited in a way that it ringback cannot have application here so greenfield door wrathfully called the sheriff's department detainees to their attorneys it had a system set up that captured nine hundred and thirty two of those calls at minimum and up to thirty thousand dollars that is active surveillance of age with that embrace the other point that i will make about greenfield is that if you have us only a single example of a routine reporting that doesn't need the sense for the satchel imitations to start over again with every new call when what course of that is doing that your client is unhappy about she knows she has reason to know for the st oh so it's not like she's going to learn anything happened it doesn't obligate her to look into the future and term and whether something might happen so i want to return to this idea that the relationship between a couple of the and also whatever wrongdoing or the alleged drunk doing hasn't already happened but the plaintiff can bring suit because of for example and administrative exhaustion requirement or retroactively or some kind of contractual carob of the exhaustion that doesn't exist so what i mean i think i have another column up on that i mean so there's several things that can be that are a violation under the statute interception use of communications disclosure of communications and in those other contacts use and disclosure they talk about content which would seem to individual as what might be happening in their cases that say that with each new disclosure you probably are triggering a statue  itself is the application of the system mean that there's also the penalty statute in this case talks about you get damages based on each day violation instead of so that would presumably say that if you have five calls in one day you're not getting a damage measure for each one cause you're only getting one because it's each damn of the violation which to suggest that you could read violation has a little bit broader than an individual  right so when you talk about interest up the definition it isn't the oral or other acquisition of a wire or electronic communication and wire communication is defined as any oral section limitations purposes if we assume that the center section did indeed violate statute is it your position that once she becomes aware that you have this continuous course of conduct of intercepting calls and violation and she doesn't fit within the st two years you can then go on intercepting her calls forever and she can never sue because the statute of limitations has run out and about that that you know you can just keep going to it is that your position oh i disagree with the force in that statement then you can go along intercepting calls forever this is just related to whether or not her claims are time or what white  ok but why if you were to go on doing it forever how would she ever be able to sue you well she can sue and she can see she's gotten two years within the st opportunity that she had to investigate whether there was a violation she didn't have to wait to hear she's now twenty two years in two weeks ok but that in the world that we're at now the two years have gone by your position is she can't sue you if you keep on doing  violation and of the violation here was the alleged practice of routinely recording detainee legal calls all the calls that happened after or within the limitations period or with two years before she complaining they all derive from that same pattern or scheme she's alleging it's a wiretapping so if you go back to the statute when did she st have a reasonable opportunity to discover that alleged scheme and that would go back to involved a system to intercept a single malt will video multiple times in the court held that intercept in mind that intercepted by that system did not constitute a separate violation even though in that case we're not going to count each violation separately it's almost one i think sion but there they were all happening at the same time right diverted the signal once up to fifty seven devices but it wasn't it wasn't on you know fifty seven different show that that that this course at least recognized the statute contemplates and understands that there can be violations in different ways one of them in which there is a system or practice place that generates multiple interceptions discover the underlying wiretapping scheme it or to recognize that there are these potential schemes that can be taking place now there is another part of the decision where the court did not specifically address whether recordings within the limitations the suggestion that when mr bliss was representing mr and i don't know how to pronounce that aria four years before the calls that issue in our office she may have learned the jail recording system so let's just assume she did so you're saying that the statute of limitations on her lawsuit involving her calls with mr can incubate ran before she ever spoke to  she ever spoke to mr pinc t i think you're putting too much emphasis on with respect to the calls to contain even though she had made those calls again her claim is based violation alleged is a recording of her calls not limited to fumigate in case calls for have to assume for our purposes today that when the jail your client was recording the calls with mr kincaid it was violating the law were all here at statue of limitations they were suing a violation so it's violating the law by recording recording these calls for mr kincaid but she can't sue because for years before she started talking to mr kincaid she learned of the system and that would mean the statue of limitations on her discovery will throughout this case and ordinarily you know the discovery will would apply the absence of statutory authority ordinarily under the discovery discovery roll claim would not exclude a true until it's been completed opportunity discovered with the word st that contemplates or that suggests that congress understood in contemplated that the statute could be violated in a bear in various ways including through the wiretapping scheme and in that instance it wanted claim me let me turn the hypothetical if a subject does not report right away the subject can sit on his or her rights indefinitely and rack up damages intil they've made enough phone calls if they're aware of a steep why would he after knowing the scheme so the damages are actual damages and i would think if you kept making calls after you knew you were being recorded you'd have a hard time persuading a judge or jury to give you actual damages and then there's statutory damages and what i honestly less them even if the plaintiff can't show damages and some of them are discretionary with the judge and i i just don't know what the answer is after this one of the alleged and we haven't gotten to th right it wasn't multiple phone calls separated by days or weeks or months or missed blitz had numerous conversations with her clients including the strips in case it is not of use and of all things those together constitute a