Baton Rouge Temperature: 81°
Friday, July 18, 2008

NEWS

Eatel, worker sued by couple

Ex-technician accused of e-mailing photos
  • By JOHN COLVIN
  • Advocate River parishes bureau
  • Published: May 17, 2008 - Page: 1B - UPDATED: 12:05 a.m.

GONZALES — An Ascension Parish couple is suing a former employee of communications company, Eatel Corp., and the company itself.

In a lawsuit filed in 23rd Judicial District Court, Nicole Leblanc and Brad Edmonds allege that Grady Watts copied some of their personal photographs while working as an Eatel technician.

On May 4, 2007, Watts responded to Nicole Edmonds’ report of an Internet service outage at her business office at 214 S. Burnside Ave., in Gonzales, according to the suit filed May 5.

It further states that after about two hours of working on the outage, Watts allegedly viewed “very personal and explicit pictures” of Nicole and Brad Edmonds found on their computer and then sent three e-mails to himself containing nine photographs and then two additional e-mails with five of the photos to a third party.

Watts could not be reached for comment. A phone number published in his name that corresponds with the address on the suit is disconnected. E-mails sent Wednesday to the addresses listed in the suit could not be delivered and an error message was returned that stated the e-mail addresses do not exist.

Watts is no longer an employee of Eatel, said Brad Supple, director of sales and marketing for the Gonzales-based company, who would not elaborate on the circumstances or timing of Watts’ departure.

The suit also accuses Eatel of negligent hiring, inadequate training and inadequate supervision.

Supple said company policy does not allow him to discuss pending litigation.

Eatel’s staff counsel, Janet Britton, was out of town and unavailable for comment, Supple added.

The suit seeks unspecified relief for mental anguish, anxiety and loss of consortium, stating that Nicole Edmunds required counseling following the alleged event.

Larry Buquoi, a Prairieville attorney representing the Edmondses, declined to discuss the case beyond the information in the lawsuit.

Watts faced criminal charges following this incident and pleaded guilty Oct. 24 to the misdemeanor charge of computer tampering in Ascension Parish Court, according to court records. Judge Marilyn Lambert ordered him to pay a $100 fine.


Comments (18)
Your name:

Your e-mail: (Will not be published)
Terms of Service

Terry
Saturday, May 17, 2008
1:28 AM

Oh My goodness, This is something I have Never thought of when a repair person comes into my home. Hmmm I hope they Lock this man up, But that will not retreive the Private pictures he has stolen and done who knows what with them.
Freddy Fresh
Saturday, May 17, 2008
4:31 AM

I wonder what those two were doing in those pictures...and I wonder if Mrs. Watts place of business was, in fact, her own business, or is she storing naughty f*ck pictures of herself on her employers computer? Can I get a copy of the pictures? My curiousity is aroused.
Kyle
Saturday, May 17, 2008
9:04 AM

How do I get on this guy's email list?
Natalie
Saturday, May 17, 2008
9:40 AM

OH MY GOSH! A $100.00 FINE! I TELL YOUWHAT THE CRIMINALS ARE GETTING IT EASEIER AND EASIER EVERY DAY AND THE INNOCENT PEOPLE THAT CRIMES ARE BEING COMMITTED AGAINST ARE GETTING IT HARDER AND HARDER! LOVE THE ASCENSION PARISH JUSTICE SYSTEM! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
Montblanc
Saturday, May 17, 2008
11:21 AM

I believe that what the technician was definitely in the wrong. With that said, it is idiotic to put any personal information (any media or documents) on a computer with an internet connection. Any computer with an internet connection is a potential target for an information-harvest. Whatever the result of the lawsuit, I believe the plantiffs should be ordered to attend a computer/information security class. Their moronic actions left them susceptible to this type of attack anyway. In addition, holding a company liable for the ill-willed action of one flunkee is ludicrous. These people seem to only want money. I believe the tech should be responsible for his actions, and should pay the reparation for the counseling of Nicole Edmonds. The only charge that may stick is the "inadequate supervision." What can be done to change this? Nothing. Unless, of course, EATEL customers want to have a rate hike to send out a supervisor and a technician on every service call.
Me
Saturday, May 17, 2008
2:17 PM

Terry, stop your random capitalization. It makes no sense. Natalie, turn off caps lock and step away from the computer this instant.
Come on.......
Sunday, May 18, 2008
1:35 AM

Come on.... these are greedy, sick and perveted people. It's obvoius that is was naughty photos...why keep that stuff on your computer? Do you really think they have mental anguish? I think not............
OMG
Sunday, May 18, 2008
6:41 AM

Seems like Ms Edmonds employer should be checking her computer, naughty pictures in a work place , whether you own the company or not, is not good. Who's to say other co-workers have not seen the same pictures. Do we sue them also ?
Renee` LaBauve
Sunday, May 18, 2008
10:36 PM

Kind of scary! This may have been on a company computer??? but what if you put a call in to have a tech look at a problem on your personal computer. The arguement is not whose computer but how the information was obtained and then passed/emailed to others and himself. Seems like it would be a larger fine?
Mike
Monday, May 19, 2008
9:52 AM

Why are they suing Eatel? You can't screen out what someone is going to do. And geez, why would someone have those type of pictures on a work computer? What the tech did was completely wrong, but at the same time this couple got caught with their pants down (pun intended) and are trying to lay all the blame on someone else. One more thing, to Me: Lighten up ok? This isn't English class, what do you care how people type on here? I suggest you buy a copy of Huked on Foniks.
Bob
Monday, May 19, 2008
9:01 PM

While I do not dismiss this employee's actions, I also do not agree with this frivolous attempt at monetary gains. In legal terms the most generic definition for lack of sexual desire is labeled loss of consortium. Obviously if this couple had pictures of a “very personal and explicit nature” then they WERE in fact in the act of copulation with one another or OTHERS. In my opinion if you are willing to let someone photograph you in the act then you are not going to have any loss of desire to perform that act. It seems to me that this couple literally got caught with their pants down and is now trying to benefit from it. Furthermore, it seems to me that Mr. Watts did the honorable thing, admitted his guilt and suffered the consequences. Also, the statute of limitations for civil suits in this state is one year. Come on Mr. and Mrs. Edmunds, its blatantly oblivious that if you had in fact suffered any mental anguish then you wouldn’t have waited until the DEADLINE to file suit.
yeah rite
Monday, May 19, 2008
10:15 PM

I was also wondering why it took so long for this couple to file suit. Almost a year later????
Bob
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
7:55 AM

One more point that I would like to add towards Mr. and Mrs. Edmunds. This was a relatively quiet matter until you filed suit and the Advocate placed this article on the front page of the Metro section. I wonder how much more mental anguish they will suffer when these alleged photos are shown in open court.
Angela
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
8:51 AM

I seriously doubt he was looking at her pics without her sitting right there by him. How many techs r there alone without u sitting there esp. one that looks like Grady (he is FINE!!!) Miss LeBlanc is lacking morals and GREEDY. She put pics on her work computer with internet when hackers live to hijack your personal stuff all day long. and FYI- Judge Marilyn Lambert is one of the fairest Judges I know. Ask anyone in our fine town. She puts the Honor in Honorable.
bobby m
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
5:56 PM

Only appraisers type in all caps!
Bobby M
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
8:22 PM

What is her name anyway? It is reported with several different last names. Drop the suit, you will not win.
Once knew him...
Tuesday, Jun 03, 2008
11:21 AM

What is wrong with you people? Mr. Watts committed a crime, he stole. It doesn't not matter what he stole, the fact is that he did. Would you be more inclined to be on the plaintiffs side if he would have stole their financial information? The moral/ethical behavior of the plaintiffs is not the issue in this case. If you condemn the plaintiffs’ morals and ethics, should you do the same for Mr. Watts? I happen to know first hand that Mr. Watts morals and ethics are severely lacking.
yeldarb
Monday, Jul 14, 2008
3:59 PM

OMG..I have read this thread from time to time as well as the article, and it is quite troubling that any "rational" person can think that files kept on a computer are in any way acceptable for a employee of a company as large as Eatel to access, steal, or redistribute simply because of the assumed content. We live in a computer world, most of us have more personal information on our pc's then we do in our homes. I wonder how many of those who take this lightly or think assuming thier privacy is OPTIONAL depending on content have had Eatel or any large service provder in there own home or office I.E. Cox, Eatel, or any other large service provider in there homes? I wonder if you would have a little differant perspective had they installed spy cames in your bedroom to capture you and your spouse at your most intimate times and then sent them out into the WWW universe for the world to see? This is about privacy! "Not content" you should trust those who visit your home or business these days. I mean its not like you have many choices "Eatel has exclusive rights to this area, Cox to the other. Entergy to that area, Demco to the other. With consumers now having so few choices on who's service to use these big companys should screen and supervise the employees consumers are forced to use far better then what was done in this case. CHECK YOUR CEILING FANS FOLKS! LOL.. Less then 11% of privacy violations are ever even discovered in residential or individuales cases, and only about 7% of identity theft perpatrators are ever brought to justice. I bet Eatel Made sure this employee couldnt retrieve sensitive data from them, to bad they can't look out for there customers in the same fasion. In the end i will watch every move a SERVICE PROFESSIONAL ever makes in my home ever again, and I feel sorry for the people involved here.
ADVERTISEMENTS


PROMOTIONS


WBRZ CHANNEL 2