Does Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) authorize hearsay testimony concerning the contents of business records which have not been admitted into evidence?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case presents clear conflictonapure question : oO of law, regarding the Federal Rules of Evidence. Accord: ing to the Eleventh Circuit, the hearsay statements of an affiant/witness related to the contents of business records which have not been admitted into evidence, . , are admissible as evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6). The holding directly conflicts with the Fifth Circuit, which holds such testimony is inadmis| . sible hearsay. 1. Does Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6), authorize hearsay testimony concerning the contents of business , records which have not been admitted into evidence? The Florida Supreme Court agrees with the Fifth , Circuit and its holding is inextricably rooted in the : : statutory and common law of Florida. a 2. Under the Erie Doctrine, without a countervailing oe Federal interest, must a Federal Court apply a State : oe . rule of evidence which is inextricably rooted in the applicable State substantive statutory and common law? The Eleventh Circuit’s decision evidences a willful and egregious disregard for this Court’s summary judgment precedent and the precedent of all Federal . : Circuit Courts of Appeals regarding exclusion of inadmissible hearsay on summary judgment. . 3. Are the decisions of the courts below such a far departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial 7 proceedings, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s , supervisory power? : : ii