at trial to prove that the alleged statements were made. As an initial matter, plaintiffs argue that the notes and reports are not hearsay because the evidence is offered to show merely that statements were made, as opposed to the truth of the statements. In the present situation, the distinction defies logic. Plaintiffs hope to introduce the notes and reports to establish the actual content of statements by Cirrus executives. Accordingly, the notes and reports are offered to show the truth of the assertion that Cirrus made specific fraudulent statements to analysts. Such evidence clearly falls within the definition of hearsay under Rule 801(e) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Cypress, 891 F.Supp. at 1374. See also Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 640-44 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Seagate, ¶ 98,530 at 91,583-84 (finding
holding that the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment is not violated by the admission of hearsay statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule where the defendant was able to confront and crossexamine the witness who claimed that the statements at issue were made holding rule 16a1a does not include statements made by coconspirators even if those statements can be attributed to the defendant for purposes of the rule against hearsay holding that hearsay within a police report was inadmissible holding that newspaper articles were inadmissible hearsay when used to prove that the defendant made the statements attributed to him in the article holding that statements in affidavits based solely on hearsay are inadmissible as summary judgment evidence