Joint Stock Company Channel One Russia Worldwide v. Infomir LLC
- George Daniels
- 1:16-cv-01318
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Channel One Russia Worldwide v. Infomir LLC, Judge Moses set expert deposition procedures, including English testimony, standby interpretation, and a 9:00 a.m. start.
The order directly affected plaintiffs, Infomir LLC, and plaintiffs’ expert Dmitri Dietrich by setting the language, timing, interpreter, and examination conditions for Dietrich’s deposition.
What happened
Joint Stock Company Channel One Russia Worldwide v. Infomir LLC involved a dispute about the upcoming deposition of plaintiffs’ expert Dmitri Dietrich, who worked in Germany and had written his reports in English. The parties also disagreed about whether the deposition should start at 8:00 or 10:00 a.m. Eastern time.
Plaintiffs asked to use a Russian-language interpreter at Infomir’s expense, while Infomir argued that Dietrich could testify in English without an interpreter. The parties agreed that the deposition would occur remotely over two days, but they did not agree on the start time or interpreter arrangements.
Judge Barbara Moses ordered that the deposition proceed in English at 9:00 a.m. Eastern time on both days. Judge Moses allowed plaintiffs to provide a certified English/Russian interpreter at their own expense on standby, with limited consultation permitted when Dietrich stated that he needed language assistance.
The detailed version
- Joint Stock Company Channel One Russia Worldwide v. Infomir LLC · No. 1:16-cv-01318
- George Daniels
- Oct. 15, 2020
Background
The parties were involved in a long-running action and had previously disputed the timing and sequence of expert discovery. Plaintiffs filed a letter-motion concerning the upcoming deposition of their expert witness, Dmitri Dietrich. The two issues were the deposition’s start time and whether Dietrich could testify with a Russian-language interpreter paid for by Infomir LLC.
Dietrich worked in Wiesbaden, Germany, as Chief Technical Officer of Kartina Digital GmbH. The opinion states that Kartina was not formally a party but paid plaintiffs’ legal fees and coordinated their legal strategy. Before plaintiffs disclosed Dietrich as a trial expert, he had provided fact and expert evidence for plaintiffs during a discovery-sanctions dispute and had testified in English at a 2019 sanctions hearing, with a Russian interpreter available on standby. The interpreter was used only once during that hearing. Dietrich’s written reports and declarations, including his August 4, 2020 expert report, were in English and stated that he could read and write in English.
The parties’ positions
Because of the six-hour time difference between New York and Wiesbaden, the parties agreed that the remote deposition would take place over two days. Plaintiffs requested an 8:00 a.m. Eastern start time and argued that Dietrich might not be fluent enough in English to testify about complex technical issues without an interpreter. Infomir sought a 10:00 a.m. start time to allow its counsel additional preparation time and argued that an interpreter was unnecessary because Dietrich had prepared a technical report in English and had previously testified about similar topics in English.
The opinion states that neither side cited directly relevant case law and that Dietrich himself had not submitted a statement about his English ability or comfort level. The court criticized the parties for seeking judicial intervention over a dispute that it believed they should have resolved through a practical compromise.
Ruling
Judge Barbara Moses concluded, based on her review of Dietrich’s expert reports and her observation of his earlier testimony, that he was capable of testifying as an expert in English. The court also reasoned that translating highly technical English questions into Russian and translating the answers back into English could create a risk of lost or distorted meaning. At the same time, the court determined that Dietrich was less comfortable in English than in Russian and that limited language assistance could improve clarity.
The court ordered four conditions:
- Dietrich’s deposition would be conducted in English.
- Plaintiffs could provide a certified English/Russian interpreter on standby, but plaintiffs had to pay the interpreter’s cost.
- Dietrich could consult the interpreter if he stated on the record that he needed help understanding a question or expressing an answer in English, unless the questioning attorney could resolve the issue by rephrasing the question. The consultations had to be limited to what was reasonably necessary, occur in both sides’ counsel’s presence, and exclude participation by counsel in the conversation.
- The deposition would begin at 9:00 a.m. Eastern time on each of the two days. Infomir would have seven total hours to conduct the deposition, excluding interpreter-consultation time, and Dietrich could not discuss his testimony with counsel between sessions.
The Clerk of Court was directed to close the letter-motion. The opinion does not describe the order as granting or denying the letter-motion.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.