Chester, 891 F.2d 458, 466 n. 12 (3d Cir.1989)). As the Court noted in a prior decision, see Harris, 2010 WL 4614694, at *4, the DODIG Report is likely inadmissible to prove the fact that KBR installed the water pump. See e.g. Fed.R.Evid. 803(8) ("The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness ... [a] record or statement of a public office if ... it sets out ... in a civil case or against the government in a criminal case, factual findings from a legally authorized investigation”); Coleman v. Home Depot, Inc., 306 F.3d 1333, 1342 n. 4 (3d Cir.2002) (setting forth factors to consider to determine if agency reports are admissible under Rule 803(8)); Hallett v. United States, 877 F.Supp. 1423, 1428 (D.Nev.1995) (<HOLDING>). 28 . The Court notes that Plaintiffs did not
holding that state department report was not enough to establish a pattern or practice of persecution of christians in china holding that a department of defense report was inadmissible holding that hearsay within a police report was inadmissible holding that witness statements in police report inadmissible holding that police report of witnesss statement was inadmissible because witness had not adopted report as accurate when matter was fresh in his memory