Rios Lopez v. Blue WP, Inc.
- Judith McCarthy
- 7:18-cv-11360
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Rios Lopez v. Blue WP, Inc.: Judge McCarthy ordered payroll documents, assigned interpreter costs to defendants, and denied plaintiffs’ sanctions request.
The parties to the case, particularly the defendants responsible for producing payroll documents and paying for a needed deposition interpreter, and the plaintiffs whose sanctions request was denied.
What happened
In Rios Lopez v. Blue WP, Inc., the court addressed four letters concerning discovery in the wage-and-hour case.
The court ordered defendants to produce additional payroll-company documents by January 31, 2020. It also considered who should pay for an interpreter for a deposition.
Judge McCarthy required defendants, as the party taking the deposition, to pay for an interpreter if needed, and denied plaintiffs’ request for sanctions. The court also warned that defendants could not take a second deposition of the same person if they proceeded without an interpreter and later decided one was necessary.
The detailed version
- Rios Lopez v. Blue WP, Inc. · No. 7:18-cv-11360
- Judith McCarthy
- Jan. 27, 2020
Background
The order addressed requests made in four letters from the parties. The requests concerned additional payroll-company documents, payment for an interpreter needed for a deposition, and sanctions.
Rulings
The court ordered defendants to produce the additional payroll documents referenced in their January 17, 2020 letter by January 31, 2020.
The court placed responsibility for an interpreter’s cost on defendants because they were taking the deposition. It stated that the party taking a deposition typically pays the interpreter’s cost, which may later be recoverable as a litigation cost if that party ultimately prevails. The court cautioned that if defendants proceeded without an interpreter and later determined that one was needed, they could not take a second deposition of that individual.
The court denied plaintiffs’ request for appropriate sanctions relating to the payroll-document issue.
Disposition
The order required defendants to produce the additional payroll documents, made defendants responsible for paying for an interpreter if necessary, and denied plaintiffs’ request for sanctions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.