statement offered as evidence at trial is not considered heai'say if “[t]he statement is offered against a party and is ... a statement by the party’s agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship.” Fed. R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(D). There is no dispute that the statements Webb made to the government informant (a co-employee) and to the law enforcement agents concerned Webb’s billing practices and procedures at PDS while he was employed as the manager of the photogram department. Thus, the statements concerned matters within the scope of Webb’s employment with PDS, made during the existence of the employment relationship, and were admissible against PDS under Rule 801(d)(2)(D). See Brothers, 219 F.3d at 309-311 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, PDS seemingly agrees that Webb’s
holding that grand jury testimony of officer and inhouse counsel for corporate defendant was properly admitted as admission against the corporate defendant holding that a fraudulent transfer claim against a corporate debtors control person belongs to the corporate debtor not to specific creditors holding that to establish an attorneyclient privilege a corporate officer must make it clear that he is consulting the inhouse counsel on a personal basis and the counsel must accept the representation holding that a corporate officer signing a contract in his corporate capacity is generally not liable for damages under the contract holding that the general corporate laws are incorporated into the corporate charter