the registry certificate should be classified as a business record is unavailing. Ordinarily, documents kept in the regular course of business may be admitted at trial notwithstanding their hearsay status. See G. L. c. 233, § 78; Commonwealth v. Trapp, 396 Mass. 202, 208 (1985), S.C., 423 Mass. 356, cert, denied, 519 U.S. 1045 (1996). See also Mass. G. Evid. § 803 (6) (A) (2011). In Crawford, supra at 56, the Supreme Court noted that, by their nature, certain out-of-court statements, such as business records, are not testimonial. However, the Court pointed out in Melendez-Diaz, supra at 2538, that business records are not admissible at trial “if the regularly conducted business activity is the production of evidence for use at trial.” See Palmer v. Hoffman, 318 U.S. 109, 114 (1943) (<HOLDING>). It followed, therefore, that a clerk “was
holding that accident report provided by railroad company employee did not qualify as business record where essentially prepared for use in litigating not in railroading holding that gradecrossing accident reports prepared by a railroad were not business records because they were not prepared for the systematic conduct of the enterprise as a railroad business rather the reports are calculated for use essentially in the court not in the business their primary utility is in litigating not in railroading holding that a summary report prepared by police officers for the solicitors use in prosecuting the case was not subject to discovery holding that although incorrect drug report was detrimental to employee employee had no claim against hospital because the report was not intended to primarily or directly benefit the employee holding that warrants of deportation were properly characterized as nontestimonial official records that were prepared independent of this litigation and were not prepared to prove facts for use in future criminal prosecutions