A statement is imputed to a principal or to an employer and is treated as the principal's or employer's vicarious admission (which, like other admissions is exempt from the hearsay rule) if the principal or employer is a party, the statement is offered against the principal or party, the statement is a statement by the party's agent or employee about a matter within the scope of the agent's agency or the employee's employment, and the statement is made during the principal-agent or employer-employee relationship.

United States v. Vartanian, 245 F.3d 609, 614 (6th Cir. 2001) (upholding trial court's admission of a witness's prior testimony in a civil action for violation of civil rights because it fell squarely within the....If the declarant is unavailable, Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.

United States v. Hagege, 437 F.3d 943, 958 (9th Cir. 2006) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of the foreign business records which did not violate defendant's Confrontation Clause rights because "the....no

Loughan v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 1519, 1523-1524 (11th Cir. 1985) (upholding trial court's admission of evidence of plaintiff's drinking on the job where such evidence established a uniform pattern of drinking behavior over a period of time as adduced from three sources: (1) plaintiff...The admissibility of a person's habit or an organization's routine practice does not depend on corroboration or on the presence or absence of eyewitnesses.