––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://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
- ABA Commission on Women in the Profession announces five recipients of the 2024 Margaret Brent award
- National Center for State Courts supports new legislation to protect state court judges from escalating threats
- ACLU launches interactive map that tracks book bans and other forms of censorship in Michigan
- Federal Reserve’s Michael Barr discusses health of banking system, SVB failures, and more at Michigan Law Conference
- Bodman attorney enjoys ‘code driven’ tax law
headlines National
- New Legalese: You may have heard a deepfake, but what about ‘Twiqbal’?
- From Intake to Outcome: An in-house lawyer’s guide to matter management solutions
- 2 BigLaw firms in merger talks that could produce 1,600-lawyer firm with top 50 revenue
- Send in the paralegals
- Lawyer reprimanded after mistakenly emailing opposing counsel with plan to avoid judge’s call
- ‘I don’t play well’ judge who threatened to track down, jail misbehaving litigant gets tossed from case