Ribas v. Clark, 88 Cal.3d 355, 362, 212 Cal.Rptr. 143, 696 P.2d 637 (1985); see also Bales v. Sierra Trading Post, Inc., No. 13-cv-1894 JM(KSC), 2013 WL 6244529, at *4, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170443, at *11 (S.D.Cal. Dec. 3, 2013) (denying a motion to dismiss on public utility exception grounds where the defendant could not proffer that its recording equipment was furnished and used pursuant to a published tariff). Rather, Omni argues that because the PUC once regulated monitoring and recording of the kind at issue here, § 632.7 should be read as if it never applied to service monitoring. Most courts considering § 632.7 or the identical exception in § 632(e), however, have rejected this argument. See, e.g., Right v. CashCall, Inc., 200 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1391, 133 Cal. Rptr.3d 450 (2011) (<HOLDING>); Bales, 2013 WL 6244529, at *4, 2013 U.S.
holding that even when there is a legitimate government purpose the discrimination must bear at least some rational relationship to that purpose holding that there is no unitary business in part because there is no flow of international business holding that monitoring telephone calls is in the ordinary course of business where the employer has reason to suspect an employee of disclosing confidential information to business competitor holding that  632 contains no exceptions applicable when a business monitors a telephone conversa tion even if the monitoring is for a legitimate business purpose holding that rule 11 sanctions are not appropriate when a motion is filed in part for a legitimate purpose even when the motion includes certain evidence which is assertedly presented for an improper purpose