No. 14-5123 Huff, et al. v. Spaw Page 4 room where his wife, Bertha Huff, awaited him. In addition to speaking about personal family matters, James and Bertha Huff discussed the contents of James’s earlier conversation with Savage. Spaw used an iPhone obtained from the CVG IT Department to record the final four minutes and 21 seconds of the conversation between the Huffs. At one point, James Huff noticed that his personal iPhone had an open call with Spaw’s office phone. He mistakenly believed that it had been open for only one minute and twenty-nine seconds, when in reality it had been one hour and twenty-nine minutes. He testified that he immediately terminated the call, but cellphone records indicate that the call lasted one hour and thirty-one minutes. This suggests that he may have left the pocket-dial call open for an additional two minutes after realizing what had occurred. After the call ended, Spaw converted handwritten notes that she and Hill made into a typewritten summary. She also transferred the iPhone recording to a thumb drive, which she gave to a third-party company to enhance the audio quality. She eventually shared the typewritten summary and the enhanced audio recording with other members of the Airport Board. On December 3, 2013, Bertha and James Huff filed a Verified Complaint alleging that, inter alia, Spaw violated Title III by intentionally intercepting their oral communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a); disclosing the contents of intercepted oral communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(c); and using the contents of intercepted oral communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(d). The district court granted summary judgment to Spaw on January 24, 2014, holding that Title III does not protect the Huffs’ conversations because any expectation that their conversations would not be intercepted was not reasonable under the circumstances. Huff v. Spaw, 995 F. Supp. 2d 724, 733–34 (E.D. Ky. 2014).3 The Huffs now appeal. 3 The district court also ruled that the Huffs’ conversation did not qualify for protection under Title III as a wire communication and the Huffs do not dispute this holding. Huff, 995 F. Supp. 2d at 734.