IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-30157

Summary Calendar

DANNY PRINGLE; PAUL BROWN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

RONALD SCHLEUTER, Individually and in his official capacity, on behalf of

Police Chief City of Monroe,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

U.S.D.C. 3:08-CV-01534

Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Plaintiffs appeal the district court's order granting Defendant's motion for

summary judgment. The Court reviews de novo the district court's grant of

summary judgment. In re Egleston, 448 F.3d 803, 809 (5th Cir. 2006); FED. R.

CIV. P. 56(c). For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.

On April 19, 2006, Plaintiffs received notice that their colleague had

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 30, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published

*

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1

Case: 10-30157 Document: 00511189680 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/30/2010
discovered recording devices in his office, where he and Plaintiffs had conversed

on several occasions. Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant on October 15, 2008,

alleging that Defendant had ordered the recording devices to be placed in their

colleague’s office, and that this action was a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2520, which

authorizes civil actions for intentionally intercepting or attempting to intercept

"any wire, oral, or electronic communication" without previously seeking

authorization from a court. 18 U.S.C. § 2520. The district court granted

Defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted because the statute of

limitations had run before Plaintiffs filed suit.

A claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 must be filed within two years "after the

date upon which the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the

violation." 18 U.S.C. § 2520(e). The limitation period begins to run once the

plaintiff has enough notice as would lead a reasonable person to either sue or

launch an investigation. Sparshott v. Feld Entm’t, Inc., 311 F.3d 425, 429 (D.C.

Cir. 2003).

Plaintiffs argue that Louisiana law precluded them from gathering

pertinent information regarding the recording devices and their recordings.

There is no law that would have that effect. The statute Plaintiffs cite does not

prohibit requesting records pertaining to pending criminal litigation; it simply

provides that disclosure of such records is not required. LA. REV. STAT. tit. 44,

§ 3(A) (2009).

Plaintiffs also argue that there exists a material issue of fact about when

they knew or could have known when Defendant intercepted their

communications. But the officer whose office contained the recording devices

contacted Plaintiffs as soon as he discovered them. Plaintiffs further provided

statements to the Louisiana State Police concerning their friendship with the

targeted officer and whether they had given permission to be audio taped. Yet

2

Case: 10-30157 Document: 00511189680 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/30/2010
Plaintiffs never requested any information relating to who was recorded in the

target officer's office.

The statute of limitations does not require the claimant to have actual

knowledge of the violation; it demands only that the claimant have had a

reasonable opportunity to discover it. Sparshott, 311 F.3d at 429. Based on the

undisputed evidence, Plaintiffs had reasonable opportunity to discover the

violation on or around the discovery of the recording devices. Therefore, the

statute of limitations had run by the time they brought suit against Defendant,

and the district court correctly granted Defendant's motion for summary

judgment.

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 10-30157 Document: 00511189680 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/30/2010