ORLANDO, Fla. (Legal Newsline) - The lawyer for a Spanish-speaking plaintiff who alleges security at a restaurant assaulted him wants his client's deposition scratched from the record, finding fault with the performance of their translator.
Attorney Bryan Crews of Crews and Pesquera in Orlando, Fla., filed the rarely seen motion Jan. 11, asking the Orange County Superior Court to suppress plaintiff Juan De La Cruz's June deposition.
The interpreter made several mistakes, Crews says, starting with the failure to take a proper oath. The court reporter asked if she swore to perform translation services "to the best of your ability."
"'To the best of her ability' - this is immaterial," the motion says. "One can be a terrible interpreter translating to the 'best of her ability.' Is this sufficient? No.
"Does this Court swear in witnesses to 'testify to the best of your ability?' No... She could be an interpreter who misinterprets... and that is the 'best of her ability?' This is very far from the protection this statute affords Mr. De La Cruz."
De La Cruz is suing Eagle Security Investigations and Training Center and guard Luis Viruet over an incident that happened at Taqueria El Alacran in Ocoee.
De La Cruz says he opened an unlocked men's bathroom door to see the young son of the owner of El Pulpo Restaurant crying. Viruet walked in on the scene and "overreacted," the suit says. That overreaction included assault, battery and the use of a taser.
The attorney Crews attached the affidavit of translator Rose Rosario, who testified the interpreter at De La Cruz's deposition made about 90 errors.
"Reasons for this number of errors would be speculative," Rosario says. "They could include interpreter ability; the fact that the interpreter was not in the room with the deponent, but appeared by Zoom; poor audio or video (a number of requests for repetition of questions or answers are found in the transcript); and interpreter fatigue (which usually sets in after approximately two hours of straight interpretation); and I could hear her voice was tired.
"The interpreter also stated she was 'a little tied' on Page 98, close to the end of this 5 hour and 27 minute deposition."
Re-translating De La Cruz's answers in the deposition would be unfair, Crews says, because his client asked the questions as they were presented to him by the translator.
"Questions and answers in any deposition come, as here, in sequences," the motion says. "Taking out a question or answer individually would create a jumble of no-longer-coherent testimony, along with other problems this Court can imagine.
"It would be the same as trying to unscramble an already-cooked omelet."
Crews wants the court to charge the interpreter appropriate costs and fees incurred by him, including Rosario's bill and costs for a second deposition.