equipment” — answering machine attached to a home phone extension' — qualified for the Extension Phone Exemption). Based on this authority, the Court concludes that the “intercepting equipment” used by Mother (a recording device attached to a home telephone extension) satisfies the first element of the Extension Phone Exemption. The second element requires analysis of whether Mother “was intercepting and recording the telephone calls in the ordinary course of her business as a subscriber or user of the telephone extension.” See Murdock, 63 F.3d at 1396. In the context presented — a parent recording a conversation between a minor child and a third party — this question turns largely on Mother’s motivation for intercepting the calls between Minor Children and Father. See id. (<HOLDING>); Scheib, 22 F.3d at 154 (holding that the
holding that a purchaser of a vehicle was a buyer in the ordinary course of business even though the car dealer did not provide the certificate of title at the time of the sale holding that the debtors deposit of funds was not in the ordinary course of business and was for the purpose of creating a setoff right for the bank holding that spying on ones spouse does not constitute use of an extension phone in the ordinary course of business for purposes of title iii holding outside context of recording of a minor childs phone conversations that a telephone extension used without authorization or consent to surreptitiously record a private telephone conversation is not used in the ordinary course of business  holding that the use of excessive force does not constitute a prison condition in the ordinary sense of the term