The discovery rule postpones the beginning of a limitations period until such time as the plaintiff discovers the injury, or through reasonable diligence should have discovered the injury. See Cada, 920 F.2d at 450. The discovery rule thus keeps a claim from accruing until the plaintiff knows or through reasonable diligence should have known of the injury. See TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 27 (2001).
In support of their argument that the discovery rule should delay accrual of their claims,
Plaintiffs argue that “[slaves] were not privy to every legal harm they suffered, nor the causes and extent of those harms.” Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that “in their miserable condition which was a direct result of slavery . . . although intimately familiar with their pitifully horrific condition, [they] were not aware of the nature of the investments, insurance policies, joint ventures and other schemes and conspiracies developed and utilized by these defendants . . .to profit from slavery.”
In response, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to allege any act committed by any specifically named Defendant or their predecessors which was intended to conceal any cause of action from any Plaintiffs or their ancestors. Further, Defendants argue that since the alleged injuries were known, or knowable, to Plaintiffs’ ancestors over a century ago, the discovery rule is simply inapplicable in this case.
Plaintiffs are attempting to recover for injuries incurred by their ancestors over a century ago. Plaintiffs’ ancestors knew or should have known that they were being brutalized and wrongfully forced to work for people, plantations, companies, and industries without being compensated. If they did not know of their exact injury at the time it occurred, they certainly should have known of it after the Civil War, the passing of the Civil War Amendments, or even the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.
Furthermore, there is evidence that other former slaves were aware of their injuries and previously have attempted to recover for them well before this action was filed. See, e.g., Johnson v. McAdoo, 45 App. D.C. 440 (D.C. 1916) (evidencing a claim for slavery reparations nearly a century ago).
Plaintiffs would have the Court extend the applicable statutes of limitations indefinitely, or at least until all of the discovery Plaintiffs desire is completed. “By tying the start of the limitations period to a plaintiff’s reasonable discovery of a pattern rather than to the point of injury or its reasonable discovery the [discovery] rule would extend the potential for most . . .cases well beyond the time when a plaintiff’s cause of action is complete.” Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 558 (2000).
The mere fact that Plaintiffs’ ancestors did not know exactly how much profit was made from their slave labor is not enough to establish that the discovery rule should apply in this case. “The federal common law discovery rule does not permit the plaintiff to delay filing its lawsuit until all foreseeable harms arising from the injury are actually experienced, but only until the plaintiff discovers the predicate injury.” Brademas v. Indiana Housing Finance Authority, 354 F.3d 681, 687 (7th Cir. 2004).
The predicate injury in this instance was the institution of slavery itself. Plaintiffs make a veiled attempt to tie the beginning of the statutes of limitations periods to the discovery of the damages that flowed from slavery, rather than the predicate injury itself. Again, the discovery doctrine only extends the statutes of limitations until the predicate act is discovered, not until all discovery of its consequences is completed. See Rotella, 528 U.S. at 558. Therefore, the discovery rule, when applied in this instance, does not delay accrual of the claims alleged.