## Facts

- Alden Joe Daniel, Jr. was investigated and later pleaded guilty in state court to multiple sexual offenses involving underage girls.
- Investigators sought Daniel’s video rental history because he allegedly showed pornographic movies to the victims.
- Law-enforcement officials obtained Daniel’s video rental records from local video stores during the investigation.
- Daniel’s appointed defense counsel moved in state court to suppress the video-rental evidence as unlawfully obtained under the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (VPPA), 18 U.S.C. § 2710; the record did not establish whether suppression was granted.
- On June 10, 2002, Daniel filed a pro se federal civil action under the VPPA against numerous defendants, including video stores and employees, law-enforcement officers and officials, private individuals, and attorneys connected to later civil suits by the victims’ families.
- Daniel alleged the defendants obtained and disclosed his pornographic video rental information, with alleged disclosures beginning in January 1998 and continuing through at least September 2001.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants who are not “video tape service providers” (e.g., law-enforcement officers, private individuals, and attorneys) can be held civilly liable under the VPPA for obtaining, receiving, or further disclosing video rental information.
2. Whether Daniel’s VPPA claims were timely under 18 U.S.C. § 2710(c)(3)’s two-year limitations period, including whether continuing-violation or discovery-based theories extended the filing deadline.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for all defendants.
- The court held that many defendants were not proper VPPA defendants because they were not “video tape service providers” under the statute.
- The court also held Daniel’s action was barred by the VPPA’s two-year statute of limitations, and that asserted continuing or discovery-based theories did not render the suit timely.

## Legal Principles

- VPPA civil liability is limited by the statute’s text and structure and primarily targets “video tape service providers” and their disclosure of personally identifiable rental information.
- Parties outside the statute’s defined liable category are not subject to VPPA civil damages based solely on alleged receipt, use, or republication of video rental information.
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 2710(c)(3), a VPPA action must be commenced within two years from the date of the violation; claims based on earlier disclosures are time-barred absent a recognized basis to toll or extend the period.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld summary judgment because the VPPA does not authorize civil liability against non-provider defendants such as law enforcement, private individuals, or attorneys, and because the complaint—filed in June 2002—fell outside the statute’s two-year limitations period for alleged violations occurring before the relevant cutoff date.


Daniel v. Cantrell, 375 F.3d 377 (6th Cir. 2004)