United States District Court, S.D. New York
August 22, 2005.
OSRecovery, Inc., et al.
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
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.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.