New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Evidentiary Foundation for Introducing English Interpretation of Foreign Language Testimony

Download PDF

From Sunrider Corp. v. Bountiful Biotech Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117347 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2010):

"Witness testimony translated from a foreign language must be properly authenticated and any interpretation must be shown to be an accurate translation done by a competent translator." Jack v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 854 F. Supp. 654, 659 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 604 ["An interpreter is subject to the provisions of these rules relating to qualification as an expert and the administration of an oath or affirmation to make a true translation."] and 901 [Rule 901 (a): "The requirement of authentication of identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims"; Rule 901(b) provides a non-exclusive list of examples of authentication that comply with the rule]). In Jack, the court held that English-language translations of signed foreign-language affidavits were inadmissible, even though the offering party submitted a certification by an individual at a local translation center that the translations were "true and correct," because the certification was

not a sworn statement, does not describe the maker's qualification or expertise regarding language translation, does not state whether the maker did the translations, and does not explain the circumstances under which the affiants signed the affidavits in two languages (e.g., whether the affiants were advised of the content of the English-language affidavits before signing them).

Jack, 854 F. Supp. at 659; see also Fonseca v. Hall, 568 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1125 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (holding that English-language translations of Spanish-language declarations were inadmissible because "the translations are not by certified interpreters, or any identified person; thus, they are not properly authenticated and, as such, are inadmissible")***; cf. Rosario-Guerrro v. Orange Blossom Harvesting, 265 F.R.D. 619, 623-624 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (overruling objections to the admissibility of declarations translated from Spanish to English offered in support of class certification where the interpreter filed a declaration stating that he was bilingual in Spanish and English, had served as an interpreter in workers' compensation hearings, translated the declarations word-for-word from English to Spanish, read the declarations in Spanish to each declarant, who in turn confirmed to him that the information in the declaration was true and executed the English language version of the declaration).

Annie Wu's declaration states that it is based on "personal knowledge." The declaration also states that her English was limited, that she had spoken in Mandarin Chinese to Chen's counsel Hsueh, and she understood and agreed with the content of her declaration based on the "translation and explanation" of its content provided to her. During the hearing on this motion, Chen's counsel represented that "a full translation of the declaration" had been prepared in Chinese for Annie Wu "so she understands what was stated in the declaration, to the extent that there's technical stuff in there she doesn't understand." *** In response to the Court's questions, Chen's counsel said that the translation had been prepared by an unnamed assistant in his office who was not a certified translator. Chen's counsel represented to the Court that the English-language version of Annie Wu's declaration was accurate. The Court responded: "I need proof. I don't need representations by counsel in court. I need facts and evidence on which I can rely." *** Chen's counsel offered to file the Chinese-language translation in court, but he made no attempt to do so after the hearing was concluded.

There is no evidence that either Hsueh or the office assistant whom he said prepared a Chinese-language translation of the declaration are competent translators. There is no evidence that Annie Wu's declaration was translated from English into Mandarin Chinese word-for-word, or accurately and completely. There is no Chinese-language version of her declaration in the record which plaintiffs could read or translate into English if they wished to test the accuracy of Annie Wu's declaration in English. Accordingly, the English-language translation of her testimony lacks foundation and is inadmissible. Plaintiffs' objection to Annie Wu's declaration pursuant to Rule 901 is sustained.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice