SHREE HARI HOTELS, LLC v. SOCIETY INSURANCE et al

Filing 152

ORDER denying 135 Agreed Motion for Impartial Interpreters - The Agreed Petition for Impartial Interpreters, [dkt. 135], is DENIED. ***SEE ORDER***. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 8/30/2013. (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
SHREE HARI HOTELS, LLC d/b/a QUALITY
INN & SUITES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SOCIETY INSURANCE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-cv-01324-JMS-DKL

ORDER
Presently pending before the Court is an Agreed Petition for Impartial Interpreters, filed
by Plaintiff Shree Hari Hotels, LLC (“Shree Hari”) and Defendant Society Insurance (“Society”).
[Dkt. 135.] The parties request that the Court “appoint independent, impartial interpreters to
provide their services at the trial of this matter in order to provide translation of the trial
testimony of Dong Kim, Chandrakant Patel, and Sangita Patel.” [Id. at 1, ¶ 4.]
In a civil case, it is the parties’ responsibility to procure impartial interpreters for
assistance with witness testimony they will present at trial. See, e.g., Edilov v. Pratt, 2009 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 1517, *2 (N.D. Ind. 2009) (motion to appoint interpreter denied because “there is no
requirement that the Court provide one for the plaintiff in this civil matter, and Congress did not
allocate funds for the payment of interpreters for civil litigants”); Motto v. City of Union City,
177 F.R.D. 308, 310 (D. N.J. 1998) (Court Interpreters Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1827, does not require
court to provide interpreter to civil litigant where case is not initiated by the United States);
Intermetal Mexicana, S.A. v. Insurance Co. of North America, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154, *1
(E.D. Pa. 1987) (“we see no reason why the parties to [this] action should not bear the burden of
researching the availability of interpreters and finding one whose services and requested rate of
compensation are mutually satisfactory”).
1

An interpreter is considered an expert under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and, as such, the Court
must find the interpreter qualified before he or she may begin testifying. See also Fed. R. Evid.
603 (“An interpreter must be qualified and must give an oath or affirmation to make a true
translation”). Accordingly, the parties are encouraged to attempt to reach agreement in advance
of trial regarding any interpreters’ qualifications. The Court notes that the parties can contact
Courtroom Deputy Michelle Imel at 317-229-3672 for a list of interpreters.
For the foregoing reasons, the Agreed Petition for Impartial Interpreters, [dkt. 135], is
DENIED.

08/30/2013
_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution via ECF only to all counsel of record

2