––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
- Posted July 12, 2012
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Party can't recover cost of translating documents, rules U.S. Supreme Court
By Pat Murphy
Dolan Media Newswires
BOSTON, MA--A defendant that prevailed in a personal injury case filed in federal court could not recover its costs for translat?ing documents from Japanese to English, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 6-3 decision.
The ruling reverses a decision from the 9th Circuit.
Under 28 U. S. C. §1920, costs that may be awarded to prevailing parties in federal lawsuits in?clude "compensation of interpreters."
In this case, the plaintiff is a Japanese citizen who allegedly suffered injuries in a fall at a resort operated by the defendant. The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the defendant in U.S. District Court.
After the defendant obtained a summary judgment, the resort sought an award of the costs it incurred translating certain relevant documents from Japanese to English.
The plaintiff argued that "§1920 is limited to spoken communication," not translation of written documents. (See "Interpreting who pays the cost of translators," Lawyers USA, Feb. 22, 2012.)
The Court agreed that the statute did not authorize the recovery of the costs sought by the defendant in this case.
"Because the ordinary meaning of the word 'interpreter' is a person who translates orally from one language to another, we hold that 'compensation of interpreters' is limited to the cost of oral translation and does not include the cost of document translation," the Court said.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote the majority opinion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
U.S. Supreme Court. Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., No. 10-1472. May 21, 2012. Lawyers USA No. 993-3819.
Entire contents copyrighted © 2012 by The Dolan Company.
Published: Thu, Jul 12, 2012
headlines Ingham County
headlines National
- ABA Legal Ed council repeals DEI standard
- Is Perry Mason TV’s most effective lawyer? New study names top 5
- Lawyer who cited paraphrasing as direct quotes in 2nd Circuit brief says AI played a role
- After jury deadlock and mistrial, Lindsay Clancy could face second trial
- Murder, Corruption and RICO in Georgia: Fateful meeting I didn’t want to attend led to courtroom win
- Bad Bunny, Justin Bieber among musical stars facing copyright suit for using reggaeton’s signature beat




