Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

OSRECOVERY, INC. v. ONE GROUPE INTERNATIONAL

United States District Court, S.D. New York


August 22, 2005.

OSRecovery, Inc., et al.
v.
One Groupe International, Inc., et al.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEWIS KAPLAN, District Judge

Dear Judge Kaplan:

We represent Plaintiff OSRecovery, Inc. and the John Doe Plaintiffs (collectively "Plaintiffs") in the above-referenced action. We write to request that the Court require Defendant Lateko to provide translations of all foreign language documents they have produced, or in the alternative exclude Lateko from entering into evidence as exhibits any and all foreign language documents for which they have not yet provided Plaintiffs and the Court with certified accurate English translations. Given the impending trial and the severe prejudice that would befall Plaintiffs by the inability to timely review these documents and examine any witnesses on them, we respectfully request that Lateko be required to produce such translations by the close of business, Monday, August 22, 2005.

Lateko produced thousands of pages of foreign language documents without translation, and has currently designated fifty-one such documents, which appear to be written in Latvian, as exhibits for trial.*fn1 However, Lateko has failed to provide English translations, certified or otherwise, for any of these documents. We have requested that such translations be provided immediately so that we might prepare for the two remaining depositions of Lateko employees starting next week, and use them at the examinations if necessary, but Lateko has refused.

  It is without question "that federal court proceedings must be conducted in English." United States v. Rivera-Rosario, 300 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2002). As a result it is a "well-settled rule that parties are required to translate all foreign language documents into English." Id. at 7 n. 4. Failure to comply with this requirement should result in the exclusion of such foreign language documents. See Lopez-Carrasquillo v. Rubianes, 230 F.3d 409, 413-414 (1st Cir. 2000) (declining to consider as part of summary judgment record a deposition excerpt in Spanish, where the party submitting the excerpt did not provide an English translation); Krasnopivtsev v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 832, 838 (8th Cir. 2004) (upholding exclusion of copy of passport from evidence where no English translation was offered); Heary Bros. Lighting Protection Co. v. Lightning Protection Institute, 287 F. Supp.2d 1038, 1074 (D.Ariz. 2003) (sua sponte striking as inadmissible plaintiffs' exhibits that were not in English and for which plaintiff had provided no translation). Specifically, "[t]ranslations of foreign-language documents which are not certified as true and accurate translations and which do not . . . identify the translator are not properly authenticated and are not admissible evidence." Quiroga, S.L. v. Fall River Music, Inc. No. 93 Civ. 3914 (RPP), 1998 WL 851574, *2 n. 3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 1998).

  Plaintiffs request that Lateko be required to provide the necessary translations by Monday, August 22, 2005, or, in the alternative, the Court preclude Lateko from using any such documents at trial.

  SO ORDERED.

20050822

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.