installed in the plaintiff's office recorded no sound and that the videotape created by that camera shows only the movements of the people in that office,” there was no violation of the federal or Pennsylvania wiretap acts); United States v. Grice, 37 F.Supp.2d 428, 429-30, 432 (D.S.C.1998) (same); cf. Ages Group, L.P. v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 22 F.Supp.2d 1310 (M.D.Ala.1998) (recognizing that since videotaping may have included oral as well as video component, summary judgment was appropriate); State v. Howard, 728 A.2d 1178 (Del.Super.Ct.1998) (recognizing that the audio component of a video recorder is subject to "Delaware's Wiretap Statute, which parallels the federal wiretap statute”). 10 . See also Epps v. St. Mary’s Hospital of Athens, Inc., 802 F.2d 412, 415 (11th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); Anonymous v. Anonymous, 558 F.2d 677, 679 (2d
holding that the public use exception was not applicable because the injury to the tenants employee occurred in an area of the leased premises that was not open to the public but was used only by employees holding that the question of whether the defendants recording device was an intercepting device was a question of law appropriate for summary judgment holding description which used phrase articles of personal property now or hereafter attached to delivered for use installed in or used in connection with said premises sufficient to cover air conditioning and heating equipment holding that it was appropriate for the district court to refer to the documents attached to the motion to dismiss since the documents were referred to in the complaint holding that the interception device was not the equipment used to record the conversation but the dispatch console to which the recorder was attached