this did not create a legitimate business concern, or that attempts to counteract it were not, in the light of Bosch’s history, in the ordinary course of business. Many cases have found that recording or otherwise intercepting calls for reasons much less serious than concern for potential bomb threats is in the ordinary course of business. See Epps v. Saint Mary’s Hosp. of Athens, Inc., 802 F.2d 412 (11th Cir.1986) (finding that the monitoring of a call between employees during working hours that involved disparaging remarks regarding company management was within the exception, and stating that “[c]ertainly the potential contamination of a working environment is a matter in which the employer has a legal interest”); Briggs v. American Air Filter Co., 630 F.2d 414, 420 (5th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>); James v. Newspaper Agency Corp., 591 F.2d
holding that boat repair was done in the ordinary course of business of river transportation company 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 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 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  632 contains no exceptions applicable when a business monitors a telephone conversa tion even if the monitoring is for a legitimate business purpose