Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): “incomplete, anonymous personal opinions.... lack[ing] any context,” ruling them “inadmissible, anonymous hearsay and speculation .”. The Med. Ctr. at Elizabeth Place v. Premier Health Partners, 2014 WL 7739356, at *4 (S.D.Ohio Oct. 20, 2014). To the contrary, many of the statements were attributable to a particular person. But, whether a specific identity is given or not, it was error to exclude these statements as they are admissions of a party-opponent, admissible under the hearsay exception in Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). An anonymous statement may be admissible under Rule 801(d)(2) in certain circumstances that demonstrate sufficient indicia of reliability as to the authenticity of the statement. Davis v. Mobil Oil Expl. & Prod. Se., Inc., 864 F.2d 1171, 1174 (5th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). The ’ statements fall within the hearsay 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court did not err in deeming admitted the facts in the movants local rule 561 statement where the party opposing failed to include a separate statement responding to the numbered paragraphs in the moving partys statement (B) holding that anonymous statement was admissible as a statement by a partys agent under rule 801d2d and noting that a district court should be presented with sufficient evidence to conclude that the person who is alleged to have made the damaging statement is in fact a party or an agent of that party (C) holding that nurses statement made during the course of treating the plaintiff was admissible under rule 801d2d when offered against the government in ftca case (D) holding that in employees age discrimination suit against former employer supervisors statement to employee was not hearsay even though the statement was offered for its truth because the statement was an admission by a party opponent (E) holding that a prior inconsistent statement was admissible and the defendant failed to ask for a limiting instruction that the jury could not use the statement as substantive evidence
Output (English): holding that a prior inconsistent statement was admissible and the defendant failed to ask for a limiting instruction that the jury could not use the statement as substantive evidence