exempted any interception where one of the parties consented. In a statement in support of a more limited exception, Hart argued that without the criminal, tortious, or injurious act language, a party could monitor the communication for "insidious purposes such as blackmail, stealing business secrets, or other criminal or tortious acts in violation of Federal or State laws," 2 U.S.Code Cong, and Ad.News, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 2112, 2236. Plaintiffs do not allege blackmail, defamation, theft of business secrets or any such offenses in the instant case, and the courts have repeatedly rejected a distinction between offensive and defensive intent when the interception is made in preparation for litigation. See also By-Prod Corp. v. Armen-Berry Co., 668 F.2d 956, 959 (7th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); Sanyo, 568 F.Supp. at 1194. 7 . Under New
holding that a plaintiff must show antitrust injury in order to bring an antitrust lawsuit holding that a prior settlement of an antitrust conspiracy case and the resulting judgment dismissing the suit with prejudice could not have res judicata effect in a later suit against additional parties in which the plaintiffs alleged claims based on new types of antitrust violations that were not contemplated by the earlier settlement when it would have the effect of conferring on defendants partial immunity from civil liability for distinct future antitrust violations holding that the statute was not violated by interceptor who had initiated an antitrust suit hoped the tape would produce evidence of an illegal conspiracy holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing holding that an activity which is exempt from the antitrust laws cannot form the basis of an antitrust investigation