Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00101/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00101-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E. & J. GALLO WINERY, a California )

corporation, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

ANDINA LICORES S.A., a corporation )

organized under the laws of Ecuador, )

)

Defendant )

____________________________________)

CV F 05-0101 AWI LJO

ORDER DIRECTING RESUBMISSION OF BILL OF

COSTS FOR CERTAIN

TRANSLATION SERVICES

Gallo has requested $32,260.00 as costs for translation services to be taxed against

Andina pursuant to FRCP 54(d)(1), and 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6). FRCP 54(d)(1) provides that

costs, other than attorney fees, may be allowed as a matter of course to the prevailing party at

the court’s discretion. 28 U.S.C., § 1920, sets forth a general list of those categories of costs

that may be taxed against the non-prevailing party. Among these, subsection 1920(6)

provides that costs may be taxed for “[c]ompensation of court appointed experts,

compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation

services under section [28 U.S.C.] section 1828.” 

Because the interpretation services that Gallo requests be taxed were not courtordered or court approved and were not pursuant to any special translation service,

subsections 1827 and 1828 of Title 28 of the United States Code do not apply. Gallo’s

request for compensation for translation and interpretation services is therefore made

Case 1:05-cv-00101-AWI-LJO Document 247 Filed 06/01/07 Page 1 of 4
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 2

pursuant to 28 U.S.C., section 1920(6).

There appears to be no appellate authority from the Ninth Circuit that directly

addresses which interpretation services are compensable and which are not. Generally,

although Rule 54(d) allows judges unrestrained discretion in taxing costs to compensate the

prevailing party, the “discretion should be exercised sparingly with respect to expenses not

specifically allowed by statute.” Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Co.. 379 U.S. 227, 235

(1964). In the context of interpreter’s services, while it is clear that compensation for

interpreters services are allowed, the interpreter’s services must be “reasonably necessary for

a proper determination of the issues.” Kaiser Indus. v. McLouth Steel Corp., 50 F.R.D. 5, 11

(E.D. Mich. 1970). It is the prevailing party’s burden to show the interpretation service was

reasonably necessary. Id. at 11-12; see also Arboireau v. Adidas Salomon AG, 2002 WL

31466564 at *6 (D. Or. 2002) (not reported in F.Supp.2d) (claimant fails to properly

substantiate claim where there is no showing of what was translated, when, for what purpose,

and by whom).

Available authority indicates that interpreter’s fees are compensable where

interpreters services were reasonably necessary to conduct depositions, Viacao Aerea Sao

Paulo, S.A. v. Int’l Lease Finance Corp., 119 F.R.D. 435, 440 (C.D. Cal. 1988), rev’d on

other grounds in Aflex Corp. v. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 914 F.2d 175 (9th Cir.

1990); or to prepare documents submitted to the court and accepted as evidence, or that were

ordered produced by the court. Neles Jamesbury, Inc. v. Fisher Controls Int’l, 140 F.Supp.2d

104, 106 (D. Mass. 2001). Translation fees that courts have not compensated include fees

associated with the translation of materials that are use for trial preparation, but are not

actually used at trial; Kaiser Indus., 50 F.R.D. at 11; and generally documents that are

provided to the opposing side. In re: Fialuridine Products Liability Lititgation, 163 F.R.D.

386, 387 (D. Col. 1995). 

In Viacao Aerea Sao Paulo the court allowed compensation for translation services

Case 1:05-cv-00101-AWI-LJO Document 247 Filed 06/01/07 Page 2 of 4
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 3

necessary for taking depositions, but disallowed compensation for translation services for the

preparation of exhibits. Viacao Aerea Sao Paulo, 119 F.R.D. at 440. Viacao Aerea Sao

Paulo excluded compensation on the basis of the distinction it drew between interpretation

services, which are authorized by the statute, and translations services, which it held were

not. If the prevailing party requests costs for translation of written materials that are

submitted to, and used by the court to settle issues in the case, the distinction drawn by

Viacao Aerea Sao Paulo appears to represent an improper basis for distinction and exclusion.

Gallo requests compensation for interpretation services in two categories. Gallo

requests $3,900.00 in costs for interpreter services rendered in taking the depositions of

Andres Naranjo and Ivan Cevallos Cordova. Gallo submits Exhibit “G” to the declaration of

Tod L. Gamlen in support of these costs. Doc. #214-8. Exhibit “G” consists of two invoices

for interpreter services, together totaling $3,900.00. Available case law clearly supports

Gallo’s request for these interpreter services, which are adequately identified and

documented. 

Gallo’s second category of requested compensation for interpreter services is for

translation of approximately 384 pages of documents, originally in Spanish, that were

submitted to the court over the course of this action. In support of Gallo’s request for

$27,360 for translation services, Gallo submits Exhibit “F” to the declaration of Tod L.

Gamlen. Doc. #214-7. Exhibit “F” is a collection of invoices from a variety of translator

services that includes: (1) charges for translation of identified documents originally produced 

in Spanish in Ecuador; (2) charges for translation of identified documents from English to

Spanish presumably for submission by Gallo to Andina or to the Ecuadorian courts; and (3)

charges for translation of documents that are referenced only by number or code and are

therefore not identifiable. 

Gallo alleges its total costs for translation of documents is $47,571.86, of which it is

only claiming as costs the translation fees for those documents that were actually submitted to

Case 1:05-cv-00101-AWI-LJO Document 247 Filed 06/01/07 Page 3 of 4
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 4

this court. The court has carried out a cursory review of Gallo’s Exhibit “F.” On the basis

of this review, it does not appear possible to validate Gallo’s claims within a reasonable time

and by expenditure of a reasonable amount of judicial resources because the number of

invoice entries for unidentifiable documents in category (3) above appears to be quite large. 

Beyond this problem, the authority available to the court tends to indicate that the cost

for translation of a document is not compensable merely because the document was

submitted to the court. As discussed above, the document must be at minimum useful in the

resolution of some issue. It does not appear that it will be possible to make the required

determinations in a reasonable time span based on the information contained in Gallo’s

Exhibit “F.” What is needed in order to properly determine costs for translation to be taxed

to Andina is a list of the titles of only those documents that were translated from Spanish into

English and submitted to this court, along with each document’s docket number and the cost

of translation. A useful list should exclude all documents that were not submitted or for

which compensation is not requested.

THEREFORE, in accord with the foregoing, Gallo is hereby ORDERED to submit a

revised schedule of those translation costs that were formerly included in Exhibit “F” that

Gallo actually requests be taxed to Andina. The revised schedule of translation costs shall

include, at minimum, document name, docket number or submission date, and translation

cost.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00101-AWI-LJO Document 247 Filed 06/01/07 Page 4 of 4