The routine practice of an organization is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 406 or a comparable State rule in order to show the conduct of the organization on a particular occasion, but a volitional routine practice cannot be used to show the conduct of a specific person on a particular occasion.

Blair v. Henry Filters, Inc., 505 F.3d 517, 531 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding, in plaintiff employee's action against defendant employer for age discrimination and hostile work environment, that the trial court properly admitted....A statement by an agent or an employee who is not authorized to speak on behalf of the agent's principal or the employee's employer may nonetheless be treated as the statement of the principal or the employer and thus as a vicarious admission that is exempt from the prohibition against hearsay; but such a statement can be imputed to the principal or the employer only if the statement, if by an agent, is about a matter within the scope of the agent's agency or, if by an employee, the statement is about a matter within the scope of the employee's employment.

United States v. Lee, 249 F.3d 632, pin? (7th Cir. 2001) (accused, in attempt to deflect responsibility, offered to show that another possible culprit failed polygraph exam about the crime; on appeal, court said that there is no consensus about reliability of polygraph,...Polygraph test results are insufficiently reliable to be admissible.

Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(10) ("Any method of authentication or identification provided by Act of Congress or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority.").The authentication requirement imposed by rules such as Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a) may be satisfied by other methods of authentication that are authorized by applicable legislation or by other applicable rules promulgated pursuant to statutory authority.