Cf. United States v. Rutland, 705 F.3d 1238, 1253 (10th Cir. 2013) (explaining that statements were instructions not offered for their truth, and thus admissible); Thornburg v. Mullin, 422 F.3d 1113, 1128 (10th 2005) ("Statement (4) was an order. See United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir. 1984) (orders are not hearsay because they are not offered for their truth)."). The Court will thus deny Plaintiff's motion in limine III.

That objection is overruled. United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir. 1984) ("An order or instruction is, by its nature, neither true nor false and thus cannot be offered for its truth. The orders or instructions were offered to show that they occurred rather than to prove the truth of something asserted.").

But "[a]n order or instruction is, by its nature, neither true nor false and thus cannot be offered for its truth." United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir. 1984). Because Aggregate offer's Melvin's account of Dr. Shreck's instructions to "show that they occurred rather than to prove the truth of something asserted," it is not hearsay.

“An order or instruction is, by its nature, neither true nor false and thus cannot be offered for its truth.” United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir.1984); see also United States v. Murphy, 193 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1999); United States v. Bellomo, 176 F.3d 580, 586–87 (2d Cir.1999); United States v. Reilly, 33 F.3d 1396, 1410 (3d Cir.1994); United States v. Tuchow, 768 F.2d 855, 868 n. 18 (7th Cir.1985); United States v. Gibson, 675 F.2d 825, 833–34 (6th Cir.1982); Butler v. United States, 481 A.2d 431, 438 n. 10 (D.C.1984). The statement by KKR instructing the industry to step down, therefore, is not hearsay and, while the email conveying the fact that the instruction was made between Carlyle executives is hearsay, it falls within the coconspirator exception.

Fed. R. Evid. 801(c) (hearsay is evidence a "party offers . . . to prove the truth of the matter asserted"). "An order or instruction is, by its nature, neither true nor false and thus cannot be offered for its truth." United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir. 1984); see also United States v. Murphy, 193 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Bellomo, 176 F.3d 580, 586-87 (2d Cir. 1999); United States v. Reilly, 33 F.3d 1396, 1410 (3d Cir. 1994); United States v. Tuchow, 768 F.2d 855, 868 n.18 (7th Cir.1985); United States v. Gibson, 675 F.2d 825, 833-34 (6th Cir. 1982); Butler v. United States, 481 A.2d 431, 438 n.10 (D.C. 1984). The statement by KKR instructing the industry to step down, therefore, is not hearsay and, while the email conveying the fact that the instruction was made between Carlyle executives is hearsay, it falls within the coconspirator exception.

This directive does not constitute hearsay because it does not involve an assertion. See United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir.1984) (“An order or instruction is, by its nature, neither true nor false and thus cannot be offered for its truth. The orders or instructions were offered to show that they occurred rather than to prove the truth of something asserted.

Orders, instructions, or directives, "which by their nature are neither 'true' nor 'false,'" do not constitute hearsay if the statements are admitted to show the circumstantial intent of the declarant rather than a factual assertion. Mendez v. County of Alameda, No. C03-4485 PJH, 2005 WL 3157516, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2005); see also United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir. 1984); United States v. Keane, 522 F.2d 534, 558 (7th Cir. 1975), overruled on other grounds by, McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987). In these instances, the credibility and the reliability of the declarant is not at issue.

Plaintiff has submitted "blacked out" copies of the original affidavits submitted by Defendants. None of the "blacked out" language appears to include statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Instead — to the extent any of the "blacked out" language includes a "statement" at all — such statements appear to be offered merely to show the effect of such statements on the state of mind of the listener, or to show that certain instructions encompassed by such statements were made. Such statements do not amount to inadmissible hearsay. See, e.g., Faulkner v. Super Valu Stores, 3 F.3d 1419, 1434-35 (10th Cir. 1993) (holding statements offered to establish employer's state of mind when making its hiring decisions are not offered for the truth of the matter asserted and are not, therefore, hearsay); United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir. 1984) ("An order or instruction is, by its nature, neither true nor false and thus cannot be offered for its truth. The orders or instructions were offered to show that they occurred rather than to prove the truth of something asserted.").

We accept Defendants' proffer and shall consider the evidence before us. See, e.g.,United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir. 1984) ("An out-of-court statement is hearsay only if it is offered for its truth. An order or instruction is, by its nature, neither true nor false and thus cannot be offered for its truth.

They are orders or instructions, which by their nature are neither "true" nor "false," and thus cannot be offered to prove the truth of something asserted. See United States v. Shepherd, 739 F.2d 510, 514 (10th Cir. 1984); United States v. Keane, 522 F.2d 534, 558 (7th Cir. 1975), overruled on other grounds by McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987). Moreover, to the extent that the statements may have been offered as circumstantial evidence of Deputy Meza's belief that there was probable cause to arrest Mendez, they are admissible under the "state of mind" exception.