––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://test.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
- MSU Law Moot Court team of two 3L students emerges national champions at First Amendment Competiton in D.C.
- MSU Law captivated by prominent Harvard professor analyzing artificial intelligence
- OWLS Meeting
- Advocate: Former insurance pro studies in Dual JD program
- Man with disabilities settles accessibility lawsuit
headlines National
- Wearable neurotech devices are becoming more prevalent; is the law behind the curve?
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- How will you celebrate Well-Being Week in Law?
- Judge rejects home confinement for ‘slots whisperer’ lawyer who spent nearly $9M in investor money
- Lawyer charged with stealing beer, trying to bite officer
- Likeness of man killed in road-rage incident gives impact statement at sentencing, thanks to AI