Illinois Federal Court Declines to Impose Sanctions for Plaintiff’s Termination of Interpreted Deposition
When Deponent Refuses to Use Deposition Interpreter Provided by Opposing Counsel
Disputes over the accuracy of a interpreted deposition are usually resolved procedurally. But when a dispute arose over a Polish translation of a Plaintiff’s deposition testimony and the Polish-speaking Plaintiff terminated the deposition, the court refused to issue deposition sanctions.
The Court Had to Compel the Plaintiff to Comply with Discovery Deposition
Lobrow v. Village of Port Barrington, No. 08 C 6978, 2011 WL 586240 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (“Lobrow”) is a case in which the court compelled a party to comply with discovery, and, pursuant to that order, the parties disputed an issue involving the Polish deposition interpreter at an on-site deposition. As a result, the defendant, Village of Port Barrington (“the “Village”), filed a motion for sanctions against the plaintiff, Lobrow, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.
The Polish-Speaking Plaintiff Stopped the Deposition After a Dispute Over the Polish to English Translation of Her Answers
In compliance with the court’s original order, Lobrow appeared at a scheduled deposition. At the deposition, the Village arranged to have a Polish deposition interpreter present for Lobrow, who spoke Polish. Lobrow did not claim that it was inappropriate for the Village to use a Polish interpreter, nor did she object to the Polish deposition interpreter’s qualifications. However, after approximately two hours of Lobrow’s testimony, Lobrow claimed that the Polish deposition interpreter was mistranslating her answers to Defense counsel’s questions. The deposition stopped, and Lobrow stated that she was willing to proceed with the deposition and answer more questions, but only with another, more competent Polish deposition interpreter. However, the attorney for the Village insisted that the Polish interpreter was adequate and that using a new Polish interpreter was not an option. As a result, Lobrow stated that she would not answer any more questions, to which Defense counsel said on the record: “Terminate the deposition at the Plaintiff’s request.” Lobrow, 2011 WL 586240, at *1.
Rule 37 sanctions are appropriate where a party acts intentionally to hinder a lawsuit, specifically in discovery. In applying Rule 37 here, the court relied on the case of Collins v. Illinois, 554 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 2009), in which the pro se plaintiff appeared for her deposition but demanded a list of questions that the opposing counsel planned to ask her at her deposition. Collins, 554 F.3d at 695. The opposing counsel refused to disclose his questions but offered to contact the magistrate judge, then and there, to resolve the issue. Instead, the plaintiff walked out of the deposition. Upon Defense counsel’s motion, the court ordered sanctions against the plaintiff, finding that her conduct was willful by leaving the deposition without just cause before trying to contact the judge to resolve the issue. Collins, 554 F.3d at 695.
In this case, however, the court found that Lobrow’s circumstances were different. The court acknowledged that “being deposed via translator is ‘a circumstance that makes some degree of confusion practically inevitable.’” Lobrow, 2011 WL 586240, at *1 (quoting Creative Trade Group, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Alliance, Inc., No. 08 C 2561, 2009 WL 3713345, slip op. at *7, n. 12 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 4, 2009)). Thus, the court reasoned that Lobrow’s concern about the accuracy of her testimony was a legitimate reason to suspend the questioning to try to resolve the issue. The court expressed that Lobrow’s refusal to continue answering questions “was not clearly proper,” but determined that it was not the type of behavior that warranted sanctions under Rule 37, particularly since, unlike in Collins, Lobrow legitimately believed there was an issue with the Polish to English translation of her interpreted testimony and proposed a solution, which the opposing counsel declined. Lobrow did not walk out of the deposition or demand for the deposition to end. Thus, the court held that Lobrow did not act willfully or contemptuously to warrant Rule 37 sanctions.
The Purpose of the Statute Would Not Be Served
In considering the purposes of imposing deposition sanctions—to remedy the prejudice caused to an innocent party; to punish parties who violate court orders; and to deter other litigants from committing similar violations—the court advised that it must exercise restraint when imposing sanctions to be sure the punishment satisfies its intended purpose and is proportional to the infraction. The court considered that because Lobrow was a pro se litigant who sought to comply with the court’s order and did not clearly prejudice the Village in discontinuing the questioning, imposing sanctions would not be purposeful. Additionally, the court considered that Lobrow brought her own Polish interpreter to a subsequent deposition, which demonstrated her willingness to comply with the court’s order and not hinder the discovery process. Thus, the court held that Lobrow’s conduct was not willful, contemptuous, or in bad faith, and that, therefore, sanctions were not appropriate.
Lessons learned:
• Always insist on using qualified, competent, certified court interpreters.
• Do not willfully choose to delay discovery by walking out of a deposition before trying to resolve deposition translation issues.
• Be prepared to provide your own deposition interpreter.
Get in touch with the genealogy research, legal translation and deposition interpreting service All Language Alliance, Inc. to schedule a competent Polish court interpreter for your deposition or arbitration; to obtain certified Polish to English translation of evidentiary documents, including translation of Polish handwritten cursive documents; and to hire a Polish genealogist to find Polish heirs in a U.S. estate case.
#alllanguagealliance #Polishtranslator #Polishinterpreter #Polishtranslaitonservice #Polishdepositioninterpreter #certifiedPolishtranslation #Polishdepositiontranslator #depositioninterpreterservices
Up Next: Certified Translation Services for Probating Greek and Italian Wills in Illinois