Roditi v. New River Investments Inc.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MANUEL RODITI and VENICE Case No.: 3:20-cv-01908-RBM-MSB BEJARANO, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ Plaintiffs, 13 OBJECTIONS TO DEFENSE v. EXHIBITS 201–204 AND 206–211 NEW RIVER INVESTMENTS INC., et 15 [Doc. 143] al., Defendants.

19 On January 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed objections to Defendants’ trial exhibits numbers 201 through 204 and 206 through 211. (Doc. 143.) Plaintiffs indicate that they sent Defendants written objections on January 17, 2024 but that Defendants failed to respond, necessitating judicial intervention. (Id. at 2–3.) Plaintiffs then argue that Defendants’ exhibits are inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 901 and 604 because they are not authentic English translations of Spanish documents. (Id. at 3.) Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that the Certifications of Translation provided by Defendants are deficient because they do not contain a sworn statement from the translator, they do not state the maker’s qualifications or expertise regarding the language translation, and they do not state whether the maker did the translations. (Id. at 4–5 (citing Jack v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 854 || F. Supp. 654 (N.D. Cal. 1994) and Brewster v. City of Los Angeles, No. EDCV 14-2257 || JGB (SPx), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82369, at *122—23 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2023)).) Plaintiffs 3 contend that Defendants’ translations appear to be computer-generated. (d. at 5.)

4 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants to filed detailed responses to || Plaintiffs’ objections and arguments on or before 12:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on || January 26, 2024.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

8 || DATE: January 25, 2024 10 TON’ RUTH BERMUEZ/MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE