Roditi v. New River Investments Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Roditi v. New River Investments, Inc. (2025-12-10) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs filed objections to specific defense trial exhibits, arguing that the provided translations were inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 901 and 604 due to deficient certifications. The court ordered Defendants to file detailed responses to the objections by a specific deadline.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ordering Defendants to file detailed responses to Plaintiffs' objections to trial exhibits“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.” | agree with court The court did not rule on the merits of the evidentiary objections but instead required the opposing party to respond, which is a standard procedural step in managing pre-trial disputes. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural directive requiring a response to objections. It does not apply substantive law to resolve the dispute, so it is sound as a procedural mechanism, though it contains a minor grammatical error ('filed' instead of 'file').
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANUEL RODITI and VENICE Case No.: 3:20-cv-01908-RBM-MSB BEJARANO, 12 ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ Plaintiffs, 13 OBJECTIONS TO DEFENSE v. EXHIBITS 201–204 AND 206–211 14 NEW RIVER INVESTMENTS INC., et 15 [Doc. 143] al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On January 24, 2024, Plaintiffs filed objections to Defendants’ trial exhibits numbers 20 201 through 204 and 206 through 211. (Doc. 143.) Plaintiffs indicate that they sent 21 Defendants written objections on January 17, 2024 but that Defendants failed to respond, 22 necessitating judicial intervention. (Id. at 2–3.) Plaintiffs then argue that Defendants’ 23 exhibits are inadmissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 901 and 604 because they are 24 not authentic English translations of Spanish documents. (Id. at 3.) Specifically, Plaintiffs 25 argue that the Certifications of Translation provided by Defendants are deficient because 26 they do not contain a sworn statement from the translator, they do not state the maker’s 27 qualifications or expertise regarding the language translation, and they do not state whether 28 the maker did the translations. (Id. at 4–5 (citing Jack v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 854 1 || F. Supp. 654 (N.D. Cal. 1994) and Brewster v. City of Los Angeles, No. EDCV 14-2257 2 || 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 5 || Plaintiffs’ objections and arguments on or before 12:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time on 6 || January 26, 2024. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || DATE: January 25, 2024 9 10 TON’ RUTH BERMUEZ/MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28