In Russell Packard Dev., Inc. v. Carson, 2005 UT 14, 108 P.3d 741, the Court repeatedly described the requirements of the fraudulent concealment doctrine using terms such as "reasonableness" and "diligence." And we emphasized that although a plaintiff's cause of action does not begin to run until "a plaintiff first has actual or constructive knowledge of the relevant facts forming the basis of the cause of action," a plaintiff cannot idly wait for a claim to present itself; rather, a plaintiff must act with reasonable diligence to discover "the facts constituting his or her cause of action." There is nothing in Carson to suggest that a plaintiff who was aware of tortious conduct but undertook no inquiry or investigation would be excused from the diligence requirement merely by speculating that any inquiry or investigation would have been futile.