Sanders v. Robert Bosch Corporation
38 F.3d 736 : 10 IER Cases 1
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Case Number 93-2423 and 93-2351
Before Circuit Judge Russell, Circuit Judge Widener, and Circuit Judge Hall
Decided on October 28, 1994

Relevancy of the Case: Scope of the business exception in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2511

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The plaintiff worked as a security officer employed by Guardsmark, Inc. The company sent the plaintiff to work at Bosch under its contract for providing security services.
• Bosch had previously received bomb threats on its telephone. Therefore, they recorded using their telephone lines using a “voice logger”.
• The supervisors at Guardsmark were aware of the recording taking place. However, Bosch failed to convey the same to the security officers deployed at its plant. The security guards only came to know when the company removed the voice logger.
• However, a design defect allowed a live microphone at the security office to pick up sounds and transmit them. The plaintiff had no knowledge of the recording until an internal investigation.
• The present case is an appeal by the plaintiff against the District Court’s judgment for punitive damages.

Prominent Arguments by the Counsels

• The plaintiff’s counsel argued that the District Court erred in finding no damages due for the period after Bosch had stopped the recording, but a live microphone was available.

Opinion of the Bench

• Circuit Judge Russell wrote the majority opinion of the bench for himself and Circuit Judge Hall. Circuit Judge Widener wrote the dissenting opinion in this judgment.
• Circuit Judge Russell: The aural element was absent as required under Section 2510 when the transmission occurred. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that Bosch’s conduct was reckless or malicious. Moreover, the use of voice logger did not fall under the equipment, and neither did the usage further the communications in Bosch.
• Circuit Judge Widener: The majority has incorrectly characterised telephone or telegraph equipment for the purpose of business exception. Using telephone recordings to detect bomb threats is an example of furthering the Bosch communications.

Final Decision

• The court affirmed the District Court’s decision on all grounds by a 2-1 majority.

Anjini Pandey, an undergraduate student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, prepared this case summary during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in May/June 2022.