Opinion ID: 201844
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence at issue

Text: 25 In his motion in limine, Ramírez sought to exclude evidence relating to his alleged sampling irregularities in 1999 and the unidentified physicians' statements, as described below. 7 26
27 BIPI's Proposed Statement of Uncontested Facts included the following assertions: 28 15. On January 19, 2000, [Ramírez's then-supervisor] Garcia made an email request to [BIPI sales analyst] Rita Riberio, to provide him with the total amount of samples given of each product by each sales representative in Puerto Rico during 1999. Riberio answered said inquiry, also [by] email, on January 28, 2000.... 29 16. The information provided by Riberio indicated peculiarities with several PSRs, including Ramírez.... This information led García to conclude that plaintiff could be incurring in the practice known in the industry as oversampling, and that he may not be complying with his assigned territory. On January 31, 2000, [García] communicated these concerns by email to Antonio Hernández, District Manager in Florida, and Noel Díaz, who would shortly become District Manager in Puerto Rico.... 30 . . . 31 23. During a meeting held on March 28, 2000 in Miami, Noel Díaz discussed his concerns regarding Valeriano García's January 2000 communications in connection with plaintiff's apparent oversampling with Larry Wood, BIPI's Regional Director for the Southeast Region of the United States. Díaz decided to investigate the matter further, as suggested by García.... 32 . . . 33 28.... On April 6, 2000, Díaz reported that he identified additional concerns about plaintiff's practices that arose during the course of Díaz's field work with plaintiff and an additional set of numbers generated by Rita Riberio. 34 Riberio's January 28 response to García's request for information was among the exhibits appended to the Proposed Statement of Uncontested Facts. 35 Ramírez asserts that Riberio's response — which was in the form of a data report 8 — is inadmissible hearsay, and that the court should therefore have excluded both the response and Proposed Statements 15, 16, 23, and 28, which Ramírez asserts are all related to it. 36
37 Ramírez also sought to exclude BIPI's Proposed Statements 29, 30, 41, 42, 44, and 47 on the ground that they refer to information obtained by Mr. Noel Díaz and Mr. Antonio Hernández from alleged visits and communications with several doctors whose identifying information was not disclosed to Ramírez. On appeal, Ramírez continues to assert that because he was not able to conduct discovery regarding the identity of the physicians, the physician statements are inadmissible hearsay and the corresponding statements must be deleted from BIPI's proposed statement of uncontested facts. 9