Opinion ID: 398580
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: allowance of costs for translation expenses

Text: 54 As to the second cost item in dispute, appellant contends that it was improper for the court below to tax costs of $412.50 for translation expenses, as these charges did not represent translation services. Appellant's Brief at 13. We find this contention to be wholly untenable. On the record at hand, we find that the action of the District Court was explicitly authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6) (Supp. II 1978); we therefore affirm the judgment of Judge Green awarding costs for translation expenses. Section 1920(6) states that: 55 A judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs the following: 56 .... 57 (6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title. 58 (emphasis added). Under this provision, the District Court was authorized to award costs for the Vietnamese-to-English translations of plaintiffs' depositions introduced at trial. Appellant does not dispute the point that translation costs are allowable; rather, appellant argues that it was totally unnecessary for Mr. Hai (the translator) to 'translate' the English which was already on the recording (that had been furnished to appellees' counsel). Appellant's Brief at 14. In effect, appellant maintains that the work done by Mr. Hai for appellees was clearly not a translating service. Id. 59 We think that whatever dispute there may have been with respect to the nature of the work performed by Mr. Hai was properly resolved by Judge Green. The record reveals that Mr. Hai was retained to review the translation tape in order to fill in gaps in the transcript and correct unintelligible sentences. Although Mr. Hai did no translating during trial, his work involved translations of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, Lam Quy, whose deposition was introduced in lieu of her live appearance at trial. 60 In light of these facts, we find that the judgment of the District Court is not subject to challenge; the work done by Mr. Hai could properly be construed to be the work of an interpreter for which costs could be awarded under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6) (Supp. II 1978). Since we find that the determinations of the District Court were neither clearly erroneous, nor an abuse of discretion, nor contrary to any law, we affirm the judgment in favor of appellees. 61