Evidence > Documentary Evidence > Writings > Gen- eral Overview Evidence > Hearsay > Exceptions > Business Records > Normal Course of Business [HN28] The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has exam- ined the admissibility of third party created records and defined the contours of testimony required to lay a foun- dation for admission of those records under Fed. R. Evid. 803(6). The admission of third party records incorpo- rated into the business records of an entity is permitted under Rule 803(6) if a custodian or other qualified wit- ness from that entity testifies to three requirements. First, the entity must regularly incorporate the third party re- cords into its own records kept in the regular course of business activity.

Additionally, Exhibit 66 is excepted from the general ban on hearsay because it is a public record that was drafted by Rushville’s Medical Director on behalf of the Illinois Department of Human Services and describes that office’s activities. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(A)(i); see also U.S. v. Clarke, 628 F. Supp. 2d 15, 19 (D.D.C. 2009) (finding that a certificate of naturalization is admissible hearsay under Rule 803(8)(A) exception); Abrams v. Van Kampen Funds, Inc., No. 01 C 7538, 2005 WL 88973, at *18 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 13, 2005) (finding that a letter written by the SEC confirming request of documents was sufficiently trustworthy to satisfy the Rule 803(8)(A) hearsay exception). As a public record, Exhibit 66 should be admitted even if the Court determines it is hearsay.

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 38: Excerpts of Mercury MerCruiser Manuals This exhibit is admissible as a business record and as a “market report, commercial publication” in that it is a regular practice of Defendant company to issue such manuals to the owners of new vessels and it is generally used and relied upon by persons in the particular occupations of dealers and mechanics involved in the present case. See Fed. R. Evidence 803(14) and 803(17). Furthermore, the document is relevant to the issue of notice.

SEC v. Jasper, 678 F.3d 1116, 1122-23 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that a 10-K annual report was within the business record hearsay exception under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) as a “business record of the accounting review”). Therefore, the HEI 10-K statements are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, even if offered for their truth.9

Id. (arguing Songkick offers each statement to prove “that this artist did in fact have a legitimate fan club”) (emphasis added). B. The Business-Record Exception Applies To the extent Songkick seeks to introduce the above-discussed statements through its Salesforce records or company emails, that documentary evidence remains admissible under Rule 803(6)’s business-record exception. Songkick makes this point for the sake of clarity and completeness, since Defendants (rightly) do not seriously contend that Songkick’s Salesforce records and emails are not business records.

Statements regarding the rent levels and unit sizes for the proposed replacement project for Arroyo Vista are matters of public record and therefore fall under that exception to the hearsay rule. FRE 803(8). Case 3:07-cv-05794-MHP Document 50 Filed 02/27/2008 Page 35 of 36 35 Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Objections to Evidence Submitted in Support of Preliminary Injunction Case No.

Accordingly, proving the victim’s state of mind at the time of the extortion is not only relevant but necessary. With respect to the CEO, his state of mind is evidenced both by statements he made to Dean Skelos (statements that, as noted above, are admissible under Rule 803(3)), and by statements made to the CEO by others that informed his own understanding and intent with respect to his participation in the extortion scheme. In this context, statements by the Med Mal Lobbyist-2 to the CEO relaying the Med Mal Lobbyist-2’s concerns both in hiring and continuing to employ Adam Skelos are relevant as direct evidence of the CEO’s intent in continuing to pay Adam Skelos, despite Adam Skelos’s failure to show up for work and his use of his father’s official position as justification for such non-performance.

At a bare minimum, Plaintiff should be permitted to lay the foundation for the Harvard Mental Health Letter as a learned treatise, and read the Exhibit (or the relevant portions thereof) into the record. See F.R.Evid. 803(18). Ex.

See Fed. R.5 Ev. 803(8)(C) (excepting from hearsay rule “[r]ecords, reports, statements or data compilations, in any form”); Zeigler v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 302 F. Supp.2d 999, 1021 n.10 (N.D. Iowa 2004) (“To the extent the press release can be construed as stating conclusions or opinions of the [Consumer Product Safety Commission], it also was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8)(C).”).

Thus, the statements were made by Defendants in a representative capacity and are being offered against the Defendants. In addition, even if it is determined that the statement constitutes hearsay, the following hearsay exceptions apply : (1) F.R.E. 803 (1) (present sense impression) (Plaintiff Counsel’s statement describes and explains the August 22, 2018 meet and confer conversation between Defendants’ Counsel and Scottsdale’s Counsel and was made after Case 2:17-cv-03190-VAP-E Document 156 Filed 11/14/18 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:5393 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 Scottsdale’s Counsel perceived that Defendants’ Counsel was unable to identify a single wrongful act that occurred while the Defendants were acting in their insured capacity); (2) (then–existing mental condition). 7.