Health prepared it in anticipation of potential litigation over Bean’s discharge such as a wrongful discharge claim or an unemployment compensation claim. Any documents created in anticipation of litigation do not qualify as business records because they lack sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness. See Hunter v. City of Bozeman (1985), 216 Mont. 251, 700 P.2d 184. See also Palmer, 318 U.S. at 113-14, 63 S.Ct. at 480-81, 87 L.Ed. 645, and Blackburn, 992 F.2d at 670. ¶24 Second, even if the Incident Report qualified as a business record, it still would be inadmissible because the Incident Report contained the hearsay statement of Rici, a third party who was not charged with accurately reporting events to Village Health. See e.g. Romano v. Howarth (2nd Cir.1993), 998 F.2d 101, 107-08 (<HOLDING>). See also Gray v. Busch Entertainment Corp.
holding that exculpatory statement made by defendant to a nurse and recorded in the nurses notes was not admissible under rule 8034 because it was not reasonably pertinent to diagnosis and treatment holding that agents rough notes were not statements under the jencks act where notes were scattered and all the information contained in them was available to the defendant in other forms holding that nurses statement made during the course of treating the plaintiff was admissible under rule 801d2d when offered against the government in ftca case holding that the portion of the medical records containing the victims statements to the emergency room nurse that she had been raped by her husband were admissible under the records of regularly conducted business activity exception to the hearsay rule holdingthat a nurses progress notes were not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule because while the nurses business duty to accurately record plaintiffs behavior ensured the accuracy of her notes it did not guarantee the accuracy of information provided to her by others not under a similar duty