Page 78 - RICHERT VS. SORKIN THEFT OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT AND THE WEST WING

assumc that plaintiffs did not discover it until they read the -lvew yorkTimcs Magazine attlclc last year, the DFR claim still accrued, at the very latest, in November 1995.
Plaiitiffs appear to arguc that a DFR claim does not accare until thcy have perfect knowledge of all facts, including every alleged dcception committed by any defcndant. This is not thc law. lnherent in the "knew or should have known" standard is thc question of whether plaintiff "exercised due diligencc to discover" the claim. Klonisch N. United States, 150 F.3d
112, 124 (2d Cir 1998); see Slone v. Writeft Guild of Americe, v'est, Inc.,101 F.3d 1312, 1314 (91r' Cir. i996) (DFR claim accrues when the employee discovers, ol in the exercise of rcasonable diligence should have discovered, thc acts constituting the allcged violation). The court in Sray v. Ll.5. I'ostal Service,31 F. Supp.2d 92 (N.D.N.Y. 1998), elaborated on the rcquirement of due diligence in the context of a DFR claim:
"The requir€ment of'reasonable diligence' nrandates that '[a] plainliffwho has learned of facts which would cause a reasonable person to irquire furlher most proceed with a rcasonable and diligent investigation, and is charged with the knowlcdgc olall l'acts such an invcstigation would have disclosed.'"
Id. at9'7,citingJe sen v. Snellings,841 F.2d 600,607(5rnCir. 1988).
When wcrc plaintiffs on inquiry nolice of the DFR claim they now propose to bring? It
is undisput0d that by November 199-5, the following had occurred: (1) the WGA a$itration panel had determined that Aaron Sorkin was entitlcd to solc writ:Ltrg crcdit for TheAmerican /)?sidert there was. jn othcl wotds, an adverse arbitration decision; (2) lawyers represenring both plaintills had written the Guild allegiDg a litany ofprocedu{al irregularities in the conduct of thc credit arbitration and asscrting that the credit dctcrmination itselfwas basecl on misrepresentation by deiandaDts Sorkin and Reiner, or their rcpresentatives [see Butmester Dec. Exs. D, E, F, Gl; and (3) on Novcmber 20, 1995, plaintiff Richert wrote Bumestel a scathing