## Facts

- Kouichi Taniguchi, a Japanese professional baseball player, visited a resort operated by Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd. in the Northern Mariana Islands.
- During a tour, Taniguchi fell through a wooden deck.
- He initially declined medical attention but later reported injuries causing medical expenses and lost income.
- Taniguchi filed a federal diversity negligence action seeking damages.
- Kan Pacific obtained summary judgment and sought taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, including $5,517.20 for translating documents from Japanese to English for its defense.
- The district court taxed the document-translation expenses as “compensation of interpreters” under § 1920(6).
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding § 1920(6) covers translation of both live speech and written documents.

## Issues

1. Whether written document-translation costs are taxable as “compensation of interpreters” under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit in a 6–3 decision.
- The Court held that “compensation of interpreters” in § 1920(6) does not include costs for translating written documents.
- The Court reasoned that the ordinary meaning of “interpreter,” particularly at the time Congress added § 1920(6) in 1978, refers to a person who translates orally.
- The Court emphasized that federal courts may tax only those litigation expenses expressly authorized by § 1920 and must construe cost-shifting categories narrowly.
- The dissent would have treated written translation as within “compensation of interpreters,” reading the term more functionally in light of language-access aims.

## Legal Principles

- Taxable costs in federal court are limited to the categories enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920; items not clearly authorized may not be taxed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d).
- In § 1920(6), “compensation of interpreters” means compensation for oral interpretation, not written translation of documents.
- Absent statutory text expressly authorizing document-translation costs, courts may not expand § 1920 to include them.

## Conclusion

The Court held that § 1920(6) permits taxation of costs for oral interpretation services but does not authorize shifting the costs of translating written documents, leaving any expansion of taxable translation costs to Congress.


Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 560 (2012)