In a product liability action, the defendant filed a motion in limine to prohibit the plaintiff's expert from using the English translation of its own test report in Japanese, which contained an alternative design for the product in question. Defendant argued that the translation was a hearsay, because the translation was not made for the purpose of being presented as an evidence.
The court found that translation alone does not create an additional layer of hearsay, but found that it is prejudicial to refer to a "safety seat." The court denied the motion, but directed the plaintiff's expert to refrain from using the term "safety seat."
It's a wonder that translated materials don't cause this type of evidentiary issues more often.