This case presents clear conflict on a pure question of law, regarding the Federal Rules of Evidence. According to the Eleventh Circuit, the hearsay statements of an afflant/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 inadmissible hearsay.

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.

Under the Erie Doctrine, without a countervailing Federal interest, must a Federal Court apply a State 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.

Are the decisions of the courts below such a far departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power?

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