Opinion ID: 622358
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: taxable costs

Text: The district court awarded taxable costs associated with two interpreters after finding that in at least one instance, the dialect of the first interpreter was not the same as that of the witnesses, and that the second interpreter played a `vital role,' as she was able to communicate for the parties. The related holding that the second interpreter was therefore necessary during all four depositions in December 2009 was therefore not an abuse of discretion. The district court did, however, abuse its discretion in reimbursing, as translation costs, expenses associated with an attorney providing informal translation services. Since there is no evidence that attorney Lam was qualified to provide translation services, her attorney's fees were not properly charged as interpreter costs. The district court further abused its discretion by awarding an extra $738.90 in deposition costs that are not substantiated by the bills.