Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798-50/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOOP AI LABS INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANNA GATTI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG (DMR)

ORDER REGARDING INTERPRETER 

SERVICES AT DEPOSITIONS

At the commencement of today’s deposition, counsel for Plaintiff Loop AI Labs Inc. and 

the Almawave Defendants contacted the court regarding the parties’ dispute about the use of a 

certified interpreter for jurisdictional depositions of Italian-speaking witnesses. According to 

defense counsel, none of the Italian-speaking witnesses scheduled to be deposed during the week 

of January 19, 2016 are comfortable proceeding in English at their depositions and have requested 

to have the questions translated into Italian. Plaintiff’s counsel concedes that she was on notice of 

Defendants’ request for interpreters for these depositions, but did not retain certified interpreters. 

(See also Dec. 10, 2015 Hr’g Tr. at 44 (“Our witnesses insist on [having a translator present at 

depositions].”).) This is because Plaintiff’s counsel does not believe that the deponents require an 

English language interpreter because each of them filed a declaration in English in this case. 

The fact that a witness is able to submit an English language declaration, or communicate

at some level in English does not mean that he or she is competent to accurately answer questions 

in English under oath at a deposition. Plaintiff’s counsel’s offer to interpret her own questions in 

Italian is inappropriate, because she is the advocate for the opposing party. Without a certified 

interpreter present, Plaintiff bears the risk of obtaining testimony that is not fully usable on a 

motion or at trial, because a witness may attempt to explain deposition responses on the basis that 

he or she did not understand the question posed in English.

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 397 Filed 01/20/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Accordingly, the court orders as follows. The court is aware that the Almawave 

Defendants retained their own interpreter as a “consultant” for today’s deposition. The interpreter 

has experience in providing Italian language translation in California courts. That interpreter shall 

be put under oath to provide accurate translation, and shall translate for the depositions today 

(January 20, 2016). Plaintiff and the Almawave Defendants shall share the cost of that interpreter

(i.e., Plaintiff shall bear 50% of that cost). Going forward, Plaintiff shall provide a certified 

interpreter for all of the Italian language deponents who are scheduled to be deposed this week, as 

the Almawave Defendants have put Plaintiff on notice that all require an interpreter. Plaintiff shall 

pay the full cost of the interpreter(s), but shall reserve the right to seek reimbursement for 

interpreter costs if it can show that such services were unnecessary. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 20, 2016

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 397 Filed 01/20/16 Page 2 of 2