Hearsay within hearsay is admissible only "if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the rule." Fed. R. Evid. 805. While some of Nuance's arguments render IBM's statements (i.e. one portion of the hearsay within hearsay) admissible, none of the arguments render the other individuals' statements admissible, thus each of the three combined statements are inadmissible.

Most of Nuance's arguments only solve half of the hearsay within hearsay problem in these statements. Beginning with Rule 801(d)(2), IBM's statements are considered not hearsay by this rule, but the statements made by others, unaffiliated with IBM, are not affected by this Rule. Similarly, while the statements made by IBM are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted—they are offered only to prove that the statements were made—the statements made by other individuals are offered to prove the matter asserted because the statements assert what IBM allegedly said and they are offered to prove that IBM indeed said what the statements claim IBM said. Last, the Rule 803(3) exception renders IBM's statements admissible because they are statements about what IBM intended to do, but it does not render the statements of the other individuals admissible because these are statements about the individuals' memories or beliefs. See United States v. Cardascia, 951 F.2d 474, 487 (2d Cir. 1991) ("The exclusion of `statement[s] of memory or belief [proffered] to prove the fact remembered or believed' is necessary to prevent the exception from swallowing the hearsay rule." (alterations in original)).

And Nuance's Rule 804(b)(1) argument does not apply here because none of the statements offered are statements made during a deposition or other testimony. See United States v. Jackson, 335 F.3d 170, 176 (2d Cir. 2003) ("Under Rule 804(b)(1), an unavailable witness's testimony from a prior hearing or proceeding is not barred by the hearsay rule. . . .").