A Nice Primer on the Hearsay Rule

Here's a decision that gives a nice reminder of how the rules of hearsay work in a trial setting.

In the case of Nitkin v. Main Line Health, No. 2:20-CV-04825-KSM (E.D. Pa. Oct. 26, 2021), the Federal District Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that notes taken by the medical director of the Plaintiff’s former employer were non-hearsay and, as such, were deemed to be admissible as they fell within the party-opponent exclusion found under F. R.E. 801(d)(2)(D).

The Court noted that F.R.E. 801(d)(2)(D) allows for the admission of statements made by an employer’s agent or employee on matters within the scope of that relationship and while that relationship existed.

With regards to some other out-of-court statements, the Court rejected the argument that such statements were not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted within the statements and, therefore, were admissible.  In reviewing the potential evidence within the context of the case, the Court ruled that it appeared that the statements would be offered for the truth of the matter and were, therefore, inadmissible as hearsay.

Based upon this ruling, the court denied in part, and granted in part, the Defendant’s Motion In Limine.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 18, 2021).