*1 SAIPAN, LTD., v. KAN PACIFIC TANIGUCHI dba AND SPA RESORT MARIANAS May February 2012 Decided Argued No. 10-1472. *2 Auto, J., opinion Court, Roberts, delivered the in which J., C. Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Kagan, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, Sotomayor, JJ., joined, in which post, p. 575. petitioner. argued With cause for Fried
Michael S. Ayer, Christopher J. B. were him on the briefs Donald. Douglas F. Smith, and Cushnie. respondent. argued With the cause
Dan Himmelfarb Kimberly L. and Thomas B. on the were Michael him brief Roberts.* opinion the Court. delivered
Justice Alito parties may prevailing awarded to The costs that be brought C. in U. S. are forth in federal court set lawsuits that statute Act amended §1920(6); interpreters.” “compensation see include question presented case in this 2044. The also 92 Stat. interpreters” “compensation cost covers the whether is translating *3 meaning ordinary of Because documents. orally from person who translates is a the word “compensation in- of that another, to we hold one does terpreters” and oral translation limited to the cost of cost translation. not include the of document
I—< brought by injury personal action This case arises from a player Taniguchi, professional petitioner baseball Kouichi Saipan, against respondent Ltd., Japan, Kan Pacific in Peti- Islands. Northern Mariana owner of a resort through, injured leg a wooden broke his tioner was when property. respondent’s Ini- during resort of deck tour attention, tially, petitioner no medical that he needed said Ortiz, Ryan, James E. Stancil, R. Goldberg, T. T. Daniel *Mark David Judiciary P. John Elwood Association filed a the National brief for and curiae amicus urging reversal. and Translators as Matsui, A. Hearron filed Maynard, Marc Brian R. Deanne E. and al. et Interpreters Association Chicago Area and brief for the Translators as amici curiae urging affirmance. O’Brien filed a Barnard, Williams, G. T. Patrick M. Scott Scott amici curiae. Translation Professors as Interpreting brief for respondent but two weeks he informed later, that he had ligaments cuts, bruises, suffered and torn from the accident. injuries, alleged damages Due to these he claimed for med- expenses ical and for lost income from contracts he was discovery parties to concluded, unable honor. After both summary judgment. moved The United States District granted respond- Court for the Northern Mariana Islands ground petitioner ent’s motion on the offered no evi- respondent dence that knew the defective deck or other- wise to failed exercise reasonable care. preparing respondent paid defense, its to have various Japanese English.
documents translated from After the granted summary judgment respondent’s District Court respondent favor, a bill for those costs. Over submitted petitioner’s objection, the District Court awarded the costs respondent “compensation interpreters” under 1920(6). Explaining services “cannot be separated ‘interpretation,’” App. into ‘translation’ Pet. for 25a, Cert. the court held that costs for document meaning “fal[l] ‘compensation within interpreter,’” Finding necessary an ibid. that it was respondent to have the documents translated order to depose petitioner, concluded that the court the translation properly services were taxed as costs. Appeals
The United States Court of for the Ninth Circuit *4 summary grant judg- affirmed both the District of Court’s rejected petitioner’s ment its of The and award costs. court argument that the cost of document translation services is “compensation interpreters.” not recoverable as ‘interpreter’ explained reasonably court that “the word can encompass according dictionary ‘translator,’ a to the both usage definition terms, and common these which does not always precise foreign language draw distinctions between interpretations involving speech live versus written docu- (2011). importantly,” ments.” 633 F. 1221 1218, 3d “More stressed, court this of the statute “is more construction 564 of Civil Proce-
compatible Rule 54 of Federal Rules with preference the award of a decided dure, which includes con- prevailing party.” court thus Ibid. The costs to the party prevailing costs be awarded should cluded that “the speech interpret required or writ- live either for services long interpreta- language, a as. familiar so ten documents into litigation.” necessary Id., at to the is tion of the items 1221-1222. Appeals among on split the Courts Because there is (2011). granted 564 U. S. issue,1 this we certiorari. HHf—< A Although at common was not allowed taxation costs years early practice in the it of federal courts law, was the rele- of the as the courts manner costs the same to award Alyeska Pipeline v.Co. Service Wilder- forum vant State. (1975). 1793, Con- Society, 240, 247-248 U. S. ness awarding of gress that authorized enacted statute prevailing parties on law: based state costs to certain supreme,.circuit taxed in the “That there be and allowed States, in favour and district courts of United compensation obtaining judgments parties therein, such attornies attendance, for their travel supreme or in the allowed fees ... as are counsellors’ superior 1, respective of Mar. Act states.” courts of the §4, 1 20, ch. Stat. 1793, Int'l, Inc., Products, 405 F. 3d Compare BDT Inc. v. Lexmark under (CA6 are taxable (holding translation costs that document 1920(6) ‘trans expressly includes to interpret “definition of because the ” New (quoting Webster’s Third intelligible language’ late into familiar E Ex Equipamentos with Extra Dictionary (1981))), International (CA7 2008) (holding Corp., 3d 727-728 Ltda. v. Case 541 F.
portando 1920(6) an because under are not taxable document translation costs living person translates “normally who [as] understood another”). language to speech from one *5 Although provision expired twice reenacted, this in 1799. Alyeska Pipeline, supra, Fitting 19; n. Co. Crawford (1987). Gibbons, v. J.T. Inc., U. S. Yet even in legislative express practice the absence authorization, referring persisted. rules state for the taxation of costs Alyeska Pipeline, See atS.,U. legislation
Not until 1853 specifying did enact impe- Id., costs allowable federal court. at 251. The largely for a consequence tus uniform federal rule was developments. “great of two diversity practice First, among emerged. “losing courts” had Ibid. Second, liti- gants being unfairly were with saddled exorbitant fees for attorney.” Against the victor’s backdrop, Ibid. this Con- gress passed Act, the 1853 Fee which we have described as “far-reaching specifying Act in detail the nature and amount of the taxable items cost in the federal courts.” 251-252; Id., at substance this Act was transmitted through the Revised Statutes of 1874 and the Judicial Code of 1911 to the Revised of 1948, Code where it was codi- any apparent fied, change “without controlling intent to § rules,” as 28 U. S. C. S., 1920. 421 U. at 255. 54(d)gives
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure courts the dis- prevailing parties. cretion to pro- award costs to That Rule part: vides in relevant “Unless a statute, federal these rules, provides or court order otherwise, costs—other at- than torney’s prevailing party.” fees—should be allowed 54(d)(1). “§ Rule We have held that 1920 defines the term 54(d).” Fitting, ‘costs’ as used in Rule S., 482 U. Crawford doing, rejected at 441. In so we the view that “the discre- 54(d) granted separate power tion Rule is a source of expenses tax as costs enumerated in 1920.” Ibid. originally configured, As categories 1920 contained five (1) (2) “[f]ees of taxable costs: of the clerk and marshal”; “[f]ees reporter any part of the court for all of the steno- graphic transcript necessarily obtained for use in the case”; (3) “[f]ees printing disbursements and witnesses”;
566
(4) papers copies necessar- exemplification of “[f]ees for and “[djocket (5) under fees ily case”; for in use the obtained Congress 1978, of this title.” 62 Stat. section 1923 § 1920 Interpreters amended Act, which Court enacted the appointed “[ejompensation category: of court to add a sixth interpreters, fees, ex- experts, compensation salaries, of interpretation under penses, special services- of and costs 1920(6); see also C. of this 28 U. S. section 1828 title.” cate- sixth here with this 92 2044. We are concerned Stat. as “com- gory, specifically costs identified the item of taxable interpreters.” pensation of
B “compensation of inter- To whether the item determine must preters” translation, we includes costs document meaning “interpreter.” de- That term look to the of any Interpreters relevant or in other in Court Act fined goes statutory provision. in a stat- a term undefined When ordinary meaning. Asgrow give Seed ute, term its we (1995). question 187 The Winterboer, Co. v. 513 U. S. “interpreter”? ordinary meaning here is: is the What Many enacted dictionaries use when “interpreter” one who as Act in 1978 defined language. The spoken, opposed written, as translates term Heritage Dictionary, defined instance, American orally 'into “[o]ne one as from who translates (1978). Dictionary Heritage 685 another.” American Dictionary English related defined the Scribner-Bantam orally.” “interpret” Scribner-Bantam translate word as “to (1977). Similarly, English Dictionary Random “interpret” Dictionary the intransitive form of House defined foreign language.” Ran- in a “to what is said as translate (1973) English Language Dictionary of the dom House added). English notably, (emphasis Dic- the Oxford And, tionary “[o]ne who lan- as translates defined senses: guages,” into two but then divided that definition designated writings,” [a] which it “a. translator books [o]ne obsolete, “b. who translates the communications persons speaking languages; spec, different one of- whose orally presence persons; fice it is to do so of the dragoman.” English Dictionary (1933); 5 Oxford see Dictionary (6th English also Concise Oxford Current 1976) (“[o]ne interprets; ed. who one whose office it is to persons speaking languages, translate the words different esp. orally presence”); Century their Chambers Twentieth *7 (1973)(“one Dictionary orally who translates for the ben- parties speaking languages:... efit of two or more different (obs.)”). a translator legal generally
Pre-1978 dictionaries also defined the oral, “interpreter” “interpret” words in and terms transla- Dictionary, tion. then-current edition Black’s Law The; example, “interpreter” “[a] person for defined as sworn at a interpret foreigner... trial to the evidence of a to the court,” “interpret” part it defined in relevant as “to translate orally tongue Dictionary from one to another.” Black’s Law (rev. 1968); 954, 953 4th ed. see also W. Anderson, A Diction- (“[o]ne (1888) ary testimony of Law 565 who translates the speaking foreign tongue, of witnesses for the a benefit of the jury”); Dictionary court and 1 B. Abbott, of Terms and English Jurisprudence Phrases Used in American or (1878)(“one testimony testify- of a who restates witness ing foreign tongue, jury, in court in their lan- (3d guage”). Dictionary 655, But Ballentine’s see Law 1969) (defining “interpreter” “[o]ne interprets, ed. as who particularly interprets spoken one who words written or “interpret” foreign language,” “to translate from a foreign language”).
Against respondent authorities, these relies almost exclu- sively Dictionary on Webster’s Third New International (hereinafter Third). Webster’s The version of that diction- ary print when enacted the Court “interpreter” esp: per- Act defined as “one translates; that orally conversing parties son who translates in different (1976).2 divider tongues.” The sense Third 1182 Webster’s (for meaning esp especially) the most common that indicates meaning orally,” but that one “who translates of the term is general definition “one that more is within the subsumed Supplement Webster’s 12,000 A See Words: translates.” (1986) esp (explaining used to introduce that “is Third 15a general pre- meaning in the more included common most definition”). general respondent, ceding definition For ordinarily the term to establish that suffices Explain- persons written word. includes who translate reasonably encompass a ing ‘interpreter’ can that “the word ” Appeals conclu- reached the same ‘translator,’ Court disagree. We 3d, F. at 1221. sion. 633 encompass enough one sense That a definition broad ordinarily un- the word is of a word does establish Dist. v. States sense. See Mallard United derstood (1989) Iowa, 490 U. S. Southern Dist. of “ordinary meaning” (relying and the on the “most common though “request,” signification” even the word and natural ”). may or ‘command’ it for ‘demand’ sometimes “double *8 “interpreter” Third in Webster’s fact the of that definition usage sug- denoting the most common has a sense divider might although acceptable, not be gests usages, that other ordinary. telling dictionaries that all the It common-or is of “interpreter” the time the statute’s at cited above defined only orally, including persons but translate who enactment encompass broadly enough a handful defined word 2 formu dictionaries used similar contemporaneous A of other handful Diction International Wagnalls Comprehensive lation. See Funk & New (1977) (“[o]ne interprets ary who trans English Language of the 665 people lates; between as oral translator specifically, one who serves (C. Dictionary 1103 Barn- Book speaking languages”); World different 1977) (“a translating, person whose business is eds. hart & R. Barnhart Dictionary English language”); especially orally, foreign Cassell’s from (4th 1969) (“[o]ne esp. employed to translate interprets, one who ed. foreign language”). orally persons speaking supra, translators written material. See 566-568. Al- though Dictionary, English the Oxford one of the most au- English recognized language, thoritative on the that “inter- preter” writings, expressly can mean one who translates it designated meaning supra, as obsolete. See at 566- meaning “interpreter” respondent 567. Were the ad- truly ordinary, expect vocates common or we would to see support meaning. certainly more for that We would not ex- pect designated English it see as obsolete in the Oxford Dictionary. Any of a definition word that is absent from many hardly dictionaries and is deemed obsolete others is ordinary meaning. a common or survey
Based on our of the relevant dictionaries, we con ordinary meaning clude “interpreter” that the or common writings. does not include those who translate we Instead, normally find that an understood as one who orally translates from one to another. This sense of the word put is far more natural. As Seventh Circuit Fagles it: English “Robert made famous translations into Odyssey, the Iliad, Aeneid, but no one would English-language ‘interpreter’ refer to him as an of these Exporta n ão Equipamentos works.” Extra E Ltda. v. Case (2008). Corp., F. 3d “interpreter” encompass persons sure,
To be the word can who documents, translate that is but because not the ordi- nary meaning of word, it does not control unless the con- appears text which the word indicates that it does. Noth- ing in the Court Act or in however, even beyond go hints that ordinary intended to meaning possi- and to embrace the broadest meaning ble that the definition of the word can bear. *9 anything, statutory
If suggests opposite: the context the “interpreter” applies only that the word to those who trans- orally. previously late mentioned, As enacted 1920(6) § part of the Court Act. The main
570 §§ §2(a),
provision
in 28 U. S. C.
of that Act is
codified
Particularly relevant
2040-2042.
and
See 92 Stat.
§
provides for
that statute
reads,
here
As it now
is 1827.
program
the use of
facilitate
of “a
to
the establishment
judicial
qualified interpreters
and otherwise
certified
1827(a).
§
by
proceedings
United States.”
instituted
the
(d)
any
interpreter
an
use
directs courts to
Subsection
aif
the United States
civil
or
action instituted
criminal
only
primarily
“speaks
other
party
witness
or
or
hearing
English
im-
language”
from
or “suffers
than the
party's comprehension of the
pairment”
to
“so as
inhibit such
presiding
proceedings
or the
counsel
or communication with
comprehen-
judicial officer, or
as to
such witness'
so
inhibit
presentation
testimony.”
questions
of such
sion of
the
and
(k)
1827(d)(1).3
§
originally
man-
subsection
enacted,
As
“interpretation provided by
inter-
certified
dated
the
that
except that the
preters .
.
in the
mode
. shall be
consecutive
may
judicial
presiding
a simultaneous
officer . . .
authorize
(1976
II);
1827(k)
Supp.
interpretation.”
summary
ed.,
(k)
form,
current
subsection
see
92 Stat. 2042. In its
also
provides
interpretation
the simultaneous
“shall be
.,
any party
for wit-
mode
.
in the
mode for
and
consecutive
The simultane-
otherwise.
nesses,” unless the court directs
summary
of oral
all methods
are
ous,
modes
consecutive,
interpretation
nothing
with the
have
do
strong
writings.4
together,
provisions
these
are a
Taken
first
appeared
as it
when
provision
substantially
This
the same
remains
(1976
1827(d)(1)
II);
ed.,
also
Supp.
see
enacted.
See 28 U. S. C.
Stat. 2040.
interpret
requires
interpreter
“to
The simultaneous
mode
is
speak contemporaneously
whose communication
with the individual
(1978).
consecutive
95-1687, p.
R.
being
Rep.
translated.”
H.
No.
translated
speaker
being
requires
mode
whose communication
Ibid.
testimony given.”
pause
interpreter
“convey the
can
so
and distill
summary
And
to condense
“allow[s]
mode
Ibid.;
Zazueta, Attorneys Guide
speaker.”
generally
of the
see
speech
(1975).
471, 477-478
Interpreters,
D. L. Rev.
to the Use of Court
8 U. C.
*10
Congress
dealing only
contextual clue that
was
with oral
Interpreters
translation in the Court
Act and that it in-
throughout
“interpreter”
tended to use the term
Act
ordinary
spoken
its
sense as someone who translates the
“
before,
word. As we have said
it is a ‘normal rule of statu-
tory construction’ that ‘identical words
used
different
parts of the same
are
to have
act
intended
the same mean-
”
ing.’
(1995)
Alloyd Co.,
v.
The references to technical in the Court In- terpreters suggest Congress Act further used “inter- preter” significant ain sense, technical and it is therefore professional that relevant literature draws a line between “interpreters,” who “are used for oral conversations,” and “translators,” who used “are, for written communications.” supra Zazueta, 477; n. at also M. see Frankenthaler, Skills (1982) (“While Bilingual Legal Personnel the transla- tor deals with the word, written is concerned spoken language”); with the Brislin, Introduction, Transla- (R. (ex- Applications tion: and Research i Brislin ed. plaining together, that when both terms are used processing input, [of] interpreta- “refers to written processing (emphasis input” deleted)); tion to the of oral J. (2d 1952) (“In Interpreter’s Herbert, Handbook 1 ed. present-day jargon organisations, of international the words translate, translator used when translations, are the immedi- ate result of the work is a written text; and the words inter- help The agrees analysis, dissent context guide should our but Act, looking instead of practice to the Court it looks to “the Post, 1920(6)’s federal courts both and after enactment.” before Ginsburg, (opinion J.). practice courts the Act’s federal after nothing enactment tells us Congress about what intended at the time of practice provi And enactment. federal-court the Act under other before little, sions of 1920 tells if what anything, us about intended (6). statutory when it paragraph added We think the context in which word appears guide meaning. to its more reliable speech interpretation pret, interpreter, is a delivered when it “interpreters” orally”). Congress specified but That signal *11 yet it intended to limit that is another “translators” 1920(6) § written, of translation.6 oral, the costs of instead to meanings ordinary of “in- technical sum, both the statutory the terpreter,” in which context as well as the 1920(6) § that does lead to the found, word is conclusion apply of materials.7 to translators written
C
depart
compels
from
us
other rule of
No
construction
Ap-
meaning
ordinary
“interpreter.”
of
The Court
the
peals
of
compatible
meaning
“more
is
that a
reasoned
broader
Procedure, which
of
with Rule 54
Civil
of
Federal Rules
to the
preference
of costs
a
the award
includes
decided
for
prevailing party.”
we
never
1221. But
have
Our decision is in with the narrow of taxable “Although everyday meaning synony- costs. has an ‘costs’ ‘expenses,’ concept mous with taxable costs under 54(d) represents expenses, Rule is more limited and those including, example, court fees, that court will assess against litigant.” Wright, Miller, 10 C. A. & M. Kane, Fed- (3d pp. eral Practice and Procedure 202-203 ed. (hereinafter Miller). Wright & Taxable costs are limited to eyident relatively expenses minor, incidental as is from *12 reporter 1920, which lists fees, such items as clerk court expenses printing expenses fees, for witnesses, and for ex- emplification copies, compensation fees, and docket and of court-appointed experts. Indeed, “the assessment of costs merely most often is by a clerical matter that can be done the court Creations, clerk.” Hairline Inc. v. Refalas, 664 (CA7 1981). F. 2d Taxable are a costs fraction of expenses by litigants attorneys, nontaxable borne for experts, investigators. consultants, and It comes as little surprise, always therefore, almost “costs amount to less litigant’s expenses than the successful total in connection Wright with a lawsuit.” 10 & Miller §2666, 203. Be- by cause taxable costs are limited statute and are modest in scope, compelling ordinary see no we reason to stretch the meaning Congress of the cost items authorized in 1920. respondent’s arguments, they
As for extratextual are more properly Congress. Respondent directed at contends that documentary important evidence no less than testimonial to.require evidence and that losing it would be anomalous party spoken to cover translation for costs words but not for Respondent Respondent written words. Brief for also entirely observes that some translation tasks are not oral “ entirely or ‘sight written. Id., task, at 20-24. One called aof document. the oral translation translation,”’ involves the written involves Id., at 21. Another task “ compar- ‘document speech. task, And a third called Ibid. ” tar- and comparing in the source ison,’ documents involves Id., at verify get language identical. two are argues cannot Respondent definition that a narrow 21-22. bright-line definition a and that account for these variations spoken writ- and “interpreter” translates someone who simple, provide complication a avoid ten words would district administrable rule for courts. Congress arguments us that ordinary convinces of these
Neither meaning dispense with the must have intended §1920(6). might Congress have First, of a distinguished out written translation between oral and potentially requiring losing parties to bear concern that opposed translating discovery documents, as sizable costs testimony, too be could oral to the more limited costs of litigants especially with possibly for unfair, burdensome Distilling Corp. v. Maier limited means. Cf. Fleischmann (1967) argument (noting Brewing Co., U. S. litigation be uncertain one should is at “that since best prosecuting penalized merely defending lawsuit, instituting discouraged unjustly poor might from that the be losing penalty rights if the actions to vindicate their counsel”). opponents’ included the fees their might translator is more also have concluded that document party expert retained *13 akin to an or consultant fo- decipher documentary instance, like, evidence— to whose rensic accountant —than an real-time necessary for communication oral translation services are litigants, between and the court.8 witnesses, translation, oral trans no less than The dissent that document contends clearly their lation, present the to case ecpiip parties is “to essential ” Post, at 579. But a document intelligently. the the court to decide merits making in important expert or consultant translator is no more than an evidence, yet documentary expenses incomprehensible sense of otherwise respondent any hybrid Second, has not shown of the translation/interpretation points actually to tasks which it overwhelming frequency arise with problem or that the drawing line the between taxable and nontaxable costs in such cases will certainly vex the trial courts. It has not any problems shown that such will be more troublesome than sifting through the discovery task of translated documents necessary litigation. ascertain which can be taxed as to the any present present hybrid event, the case does not purely situation; it involves written translation, which falls performed by “interpreter” outside the tasks an term ordinarily understood.
[*] [*] [*] ordinary meaning the Because is someone orally who translates from one another, hold we 1920(6) category “compensation interpreters” that the does not include costs for document translation. We there- judgment fore Ap- vacate United States Court of peals . for the Ninth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings opinion. consistent with this
It is so ordered. Breyer Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice and Jus- Sotomayor tice join, dissenting. comprehended parties,
To be witnesses, expression foreign languages court, must be translated English. Congress provided, into therefore in 28 U. S. C. §1920(6), party may prevailing recoup compensation that the paid “interpreters.” “interpreters,” The word the Court experts generally consultants are not taxable as costs. To be sure, forgoing impair litigant’s case, document translation can but docu- ment way translation is indispensable, is, oral translation to the parties’ ability other, witnesses, to communicate with each with and with the court. *14 speech. commonly of oral
emphasizes, to translators refers acknowledges, ante, as the Court Ante, at 566-567. But occasionally “interpreters” than is more 567-568, 2, and n. speech as encompass written who translate used to those Dictionary of Third New International well. See Webster’s Webster’s) (hereinafter (1976) English Language 1182 person esp: (defining “interpreter” translates; “one that as conversing orally parties in different for who translates 2009) (defin- (9th Dictionary tongues”); ed. Black’s Law esp. orally, ing “interpreter” “person translates, who as Dictionary another”); language Ballentine’s Law from one 1969) (3d “[o]ne (defining “interpreter” who inter- as ed. spo- prets, interprets or particularly words written one who foreign language”). ken in a “interpreters” employing to include the word short, speech, “the most if not oral of written as well as
translators “acceptable” usage,” an ante, is at least common at 568, generally “interpret” is usage, Moreover, ibid. word meaning explain of: trans- or tell the to mean “to understood intelligible while terms,” late or or into familiar commonly or an-' turn one’s own “to into “translate” means Random language.” See 1182, 2429. also other Webster’s (1973) Dictionary Language English 744, of the House “interpret” “to (defining alia, inter as, transitive verb (something written turn translate,” as “to “translate” another”). spoken) language into from one refer to Notably, decisions several Federal District g., “interpreters.” E. of written documents translators 11-40044-11, No. Prado-Cervantez, v. United States (D (“Standby counsel Kan., *3 4691934, 6, Oct. WL interpreters prepared arrange to inter- be should also defendant.”); necessary pret when or translate documents (CD Ring, Ill., *2 07-3144, 2008 WL v. No. Mendoza 2008) (“The July to trans- also directed English. Spanish plaintiff filings from late docketed.”). do original So will be translated versions
577 g., E. number of state Cal. statutes. Govt. Code Ann. 26806(a)(West (“[T]he § may employ clerk of the court many foreign interpreters may necessary as be filing any ... to translate documents intended for civil or .”). criminal . action .. Appeals
Most ques Federal Courts of confronted with the 1920(6) § may tion have held that be costs awarded under necessary preparation to, translation of documents or in litigation. (CA9 Compare for, 2011); F. 1218, 683 3d 1220-1222 Prods., Int’l,
BDT Inc. v. Inc., Lexmark 405 F. 415, 3d (CA6 2005); Slagenweit Slagenweit, 419 v. 63 F. 3d 721 719, (CA8 1995) (per curiam); Equip., and Chore-Time v. Inc. (CA 1983) (all Corp., Cumberland 774, 713 F. 2d 782 Fed. holding by that costs for document translation are covered Exporta n ão §1920(6)), Equipamentos with Extra E Ltda. v. (CA72008)(costs Corp., Case 719, 541 F. 3d 727-728 for docu §1920(6)). ment translation are not covered See also In re Puerto Rico Auth., 501, Elec. Power 687 F. 2d 506, 510 (CA1 1982) (recognizing that costs of document translation may specifying be reimbursed, without the relevant subsec §1920); Studiengesellschaft tion of Kohle mbH v. Eastman (CA5 1983)(allowing Kodak 713 F. Co., 2d 128,133 document 1920(4)); § Quy costs, v. Air Am., under 667 Inc., (CADC 1981) (allowing F. 2d 1059, 1065 “translation costs” 1920(6)).1 § under practice, federal trial have courts awarded document spanning
translation costs in cases See, several decades. e.g., Corp. Paper v. Castanea Process F. Co., 25 Raffold (WD 1938). Supp. 593, Pa. Before the Court Inter- 1920(6) § preters Act added to the taxation of costs statute 1978, district courts costs for awarded document translation §1920(4), “[f]ees under which taxation allowed exem- costs, § Translation like other costs recoverable under may be “denied they unreasonably or limited” if “were incurred or unnecessary (3d to the §54.101[l][b], case.” p. 10 Moore’s Practice Federal 54-158 2012). ed. (1976 1920(4) U. S. C. papers,” copies plification ed.). (1926 §C. 830 S. 28 U. 1920's ed.), predecessor, or under Commodities, g., Co. v. Atlantic e. Chemical Bennett See, 1959) (§ 1920(4)); (SDNY Ltd., D. 200, 24 F. R. Raffold Corp., 830). (§ district Pre-1978, Process at 594 25 F. Supp., tes of witness oral translation costs for also awarded courts Corp. g., Steel v. McLouth e. Kaiser Industries timony. See, Corp., 1970). R. (ED 50 F. Nothing Mich. D. access Act, expand a measure intended *16 the to eliminate design indicates services, interpretation See translation. document of costs awards for availability (“The (1977) (hereinafter S. Rep.) 95-569, S. No. Rep. p. statute by time has to provide . .. come committee feels interpret certified of and access qualified for the provision law the present than ers, spectrum people for a broader transla allows.”). document awarding Post-1978, rulings 1920(6) understanding courts’ indicate the tion under costs oral readily encompass can both that the term not otherwise did translation, and that Congress written determina- guide I that context should agree instruct.2 allowing practice make the Currently, Federal District Courts some Rule See explicit in local rules. of documents their fees translation 2012) . (CD . . of documents (allowing for translation 54-4.8 Cal. “[f]ees 54.1(b)(7)(B) ease”); Rule reasonably necessary preparation to the 2011) 54.1(c)(7) (Idaho fee (Guam 2011) (allowing reasonable (same); Rule evidence”); necessarily or admitted if translated is filed the “document 2012) (same); (MD 2011) 54.1(e)(7)(Ariz. 54.4(7) Rule (same); Rule Pa. Rule (NJ 2011) (same); 54.1(b)(4)(e) (SD 2012) Rule (same); 54.1(g)(2) Rule Cal. (NM 2012) 54.2(d) 54-5(d) 2011) (Nev. (allowing (same); translator’s Rule 54.1(c)(4) evidence); Rule is admitted into fee if the translated document (SDNY 2012) “is used or if document (allowing reasonable fee translated (EDNY 2012) (same). 54.1(e)(4) See also evidence”); Rule received (SC 2012) 54.03(F)(1)(e) transla document (allowing certain Rule costs of 54(c)(3)(i) 2011) 54.1(b)(5) (Del. (same); §1920(4)); Rule Rule tions under (Conn. 2011) ¶7 Costs (same); Order, for Taxation of Items Mise. Allowable (ND non-English (allowing of a competent of a translator Fla. “fee evidence”); Guide Taxation Costs that is filed or admitted-into document (PR 2009) filed 11(H) documents (allowing translation of lines, fees for §1920(6) sensibly encompass tion whether is most read to persons who translate documents. See ante, at 569. But key practice the context for me is the of federal courts both 1920(6) n before after enactment. purpose translation, after all, is to make relevant foreign-language litigants communication accessible to the (The Rep., court. See S. participants Act is intended “to that all insure our Federal meaningfully part.”). Documentary courts can take evi- foreign language, dence in a no less statements, than oral parties present equip must be translated to their case clearly intelligently. and the court to decide the merits See, g., Mosquera, e. Supp. United States v. 816 F. 168, 175 (EDNY 1993) (“For non-English speaking [party] to stand equal requires [of with others before the court documents].”); relevant Transports, v. Lockett Hellenic Sea (ED 1973) (“To Ltd., 60 F. R. D. Pa. be understood plaintiffs counsel and defendant, as well as for use at [ship’s] log [from trial, Greek] deck had to be translated English language.”).3 into the extraordinary itAnd is not say, testify, that what documents more than what witnesses *17 may make or a break case.
or evidence), admitted into at available http://www.prd.uscourts.gov/ courtweb/pdf/taxation_of_costs_guidelines_2007_with_time_computation_ (All amendments.pdf 17, 2012, Internet as May materials visited and (Mass. file.); included in Clerk of Court’s case Taxation of Costs (allowing reasonably fees “for translation of . . . necessary documents for trial preparation”), http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/resources/ at available pdf/taxation.pdf. 3Noteworthy, other paragraphs Congress placed in 1920 cover writ §1920(2) (2006 IV) (“[f]ees ten ed., documents. Supp. See 28 U. S. C. §1920(3) printed (2006 ed.) electronically transcripts”); for recorded (“[flees §1920(4) (2006 witnesses”); and printing disbursements for and IV) (“[f]ees ed., Supp. exemplification making costs of copies materials”). [necessary] of any Nothing indicates intended paragraph (6), (2)-(4), exclusively paragraphs apply unlike to to oral communications. for cost-
Distinguishing translation written from oral du- purposes, all the more an moreover, endeavor award is acknowledges, 573-574, at some ante, bious, as Court for, category neatly or thé fall into one tasks do not translation upon example, may interpreter, be called An other. convey “sight translat[e]” writ- i. document, e., written English. orally foreign-language ten content document’s Vasquez, Mikkelson, Fundamentals González, R. V. & H. (1991) Interpretation: Theory, Policy, Practice (hereinafter González). sight Tani- translation, In-court though guchi “interpretation,” it even concedes, counts as translating expression. Tr. of Oral not involve verbal does sight preparation Arg. interpreter’s for in-court Yet an 10. by translating advance, document in a written translation “interpretation.” Taniguchi as maintains, does not count prepared interpreter written But if the then reads the Ibid. Taniguchi’s view, can court, task, aloud in translation though charged “interpretation,” even id., be as expres- foreign-language reading no involves all. sion—written or oral—at
Similarly categorize court- common hard foreign recording listening lan- in a task of to a English. translating guage, transcribing into See then it it, foreign- Although oral this task involves González Taniguchi contends, not, communication, it does luxury qualify “interpretation,” “the it involves as because playbacks tape consult multiple the leisure to of the (internal quo- Reply linguistic Brief extrinsic sources.” omitted). sight Tani- translation —which tation marks But “interpretation” may may charged guchi be concedes — analysis linguistic similarly involve careful sometimes proceeding. Davis of a written document advance court Judges Administering What Justice: Hewitt, & Lessons in *18 Requirements, Profes- Role, and Need Know About the To Interpreter, Responsibilities Harv. La- 1 sional (1994). 121,131 tino L. Rev.
Taniguchi warns that translation costs can be exorbitant police. Reply and burdensome to 19-22; Brief Tr. of Oral Arg. expresses 20-21. The Court a similar concern. Ante, practice awarding at 574.4 Current translation costs, (district judges up has however, shown are to the task confining necessary pre awards to translation services sent or defeat claim. Kodak Co., See Eastman 2d, F. (District at 133 Court should not award document translation costs blanche,” “carte but must determine whether such incurred). necessarily e.g., costs were also, See Conn v. (ND Zakharov, No. 1:09 CV WL 0760, 2010 2293133, *3 2010) (denying 4, prevail Ohio, June translation costs where ing party necessary); did not demonstrate the costs were Distillery, Diageo Maker’s Mark Am., Inc. v. North Inc., (WD Ky., 3-.03-CV-93, No. 2651186, 2010 WL *3 June 30, 2010) (same); Competitive Technologies Fujitsu v. Ltd., (ND Aug. C-02-1673, No. 2006 WL *11 6338914, Cal., 23, 2006) (same); Arboireau v. Adidas AG, Salomon No. CV-01- (D 2002) (same); 2002 WL 105, *6 31466564, Ore., 14, June (DC Oetiker Werke, v. Jurid F. GmbH, 104 R. D. 389, 393 1982) (same); (awarding Lockett, 60 F. R. at 473 D., costs “necessary” translations); Kaiser, F. D., 50 R. at 11-12 (same); (same); Bennett, 24 F. R. D., at 204 Process Raffold (same). Corp., Supp., appeals, F. at 594 Courts of capable reviewing judgments turn, are such for abuse of discretion. 4The Court also observes that are relatively “[t]axable costs limited to Ante,
minor, expenses.” incidental at 573. The tab for unquestionably costs, however, may g., Co., See, allowable e. In re Ricoh Patent high. run Litigation, 03-02289, (ND *6 1499191, C Cal., No. 2012 WL Apr. 26,2012) (awarding $440,000 Co., Jones Halliburton copying costs); v. No. 4:07- (SD cv-2719, Tex., *2 Sept. WL (awarding $57,300 in fees court-appointed costs, expert). hand, Translation on the other are inevitably large. Respondent 26-27, See Brief for 12 (listing, n. alia, inter $13,000, costs awards of less than of which at $3,000). least 14 were less than *19 §1920(6) n “interpreters” prescription short, on interpretation. Given room to leave no clear as
so practice prevailing in purpose and the served good supra, reason is no 577-578, there courts, district placing payments written costs from taxable exclude judges. jurors, I parties, grasp of words within judgment Circuit. the Ninth affirm would therefore