Document must have been prepared in the normal course of business.

Cf. United States v. $125,938.62 Proceeds of Certificates of Deposit, 537 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding, in government's civil forfeiture action involving funds stolen from the Nicaraguan treasury, that evidence of Nicaraguan President's judgment of....An exception to the hearsay rule applies to the following records of government offices and agencies: (A) public records that set forth the activities of the government office or agency; (B) public records that set forth observations that a government office or agency was required to make and report but this exception does not apply in criminal cases to observations of police officers and other law enforcement personnel; or (C) in civil actions and proceedings and in criminal cases when offered against the government, factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate the untrustworthiness of such findings.

See Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 767, 775 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding, in plaintiff torture victims' action against defendant estate of Ferdinand Marcos for damages, that the trial court properly admitted statements of....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.

TAMBOURINE COMERCIO INTERNACIONAL SA v. SOLOWSKY, 0 F.3d 0, pin? (11th Cir. 2009) ("This Circuit does recognize the concept of 'curative admissibility,' also called 'opening the door.' See, e.g., Bearint ex rel. Bearint v. Dorell Juvenile Group, Inc., 389 F.3d 1339, 1349 (11th...If a trial court admits inadmissible evidence but later in the trial recognizes its error, the trial court has the discretion to allow an opponent to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence to "cure" or ameliorate the harm done by the opponent's use of inadmissible evidence but the trial can or should allow the admission of curative evidence only if it concludes that the admission of curative evidence will not cause undue prejudice, delay, or confusion and will not do more harm than good to the goal of accurate fact finding.