I sometimes recall various incidents that have happened when interpreting in depositions over the years. Here are a few.
Cowshit Hitting the Fan
One day a deponent from a Japanese manufacturer was asked about the problem of annoying brown spots appearing on the product his company was having made at an overseas factory. He replied that it was indeed a problem and that, while he did not know the name of it in the local language, someone had told him that it was called cowshit (牛の糞 was the expression he used). An argument ensued about the possibly alternative renderings and meanings of the deponent’s expression in both Japanese and English, including the appropriateness of these words as part of the interpretation in a deposition, thereby wasting about more than five minutes.
Not the 1970s.
During his testimony, upon being asked why a particular female department member did not attend a meeting that was under discussion, a middle manager deponent revealed that women are not generally invited to important decision-making meetings. The court reporter was not impressed and she briefly indicated that on her real-time reporting feed, but took it off quickly. The deponent never knew that happened.
Not the 1970s, Part 2
Examination about an organizational chart revealed one day that women employees were flagged with stars, so that people knew that they are not men (presumably so that there is no misunderstanding that they are central members of the organization).
The clairvoyant checking interpreter
The check interpreter: “Mr. Lise’s interpretation was fine, but what the witness actually wanted to say was…” The deponent’s attorney, understandably, exploded in protest. The checking interpreter, realizing his serious transgression, started to apologize on the record. His attorney, not wanting that to happen, had to physically “encourage” the check interpreter to take a break.
So that’s what a deposition is!
In a non-deposition “interview” in a case involving sexual harassment and improper dismissal of an employee conducted at a hotel (outside of the US Embassy or Osaka Consulate, arguably in violation of the Japan-US consular agreement), a deponent was questioned in detail about things nobody really expected to be revealed to the hotel help, who were serving coffee to the participants during the juiciest parts of the testimony. I could imagine them joking about it on their break. “So that’s what a deposition is!”
Huh?
An attorney says, without blinking, “Mr XYZ, please describe in detail all the incidents you don’t know or remember.”
Get back!
“Be careful, because we’ve received a bomb threat here this morning” was the advice given by a US Embassy official to people in the deposition room. My question to him was “What are we expected to do? Run fast after we hear a bomb explode?” He was at a loss for an answer.
The check interpreter learns a new language.
Once, after I introduced myself as the check interpreter before the start of the deposition, the vice-Consul at the US Embassy, when administering the oath to me, said “Do you swear that you know both the English language and the Czech language and that …” Yes, there was laughter.
Not all deposition outlines are created equal.
One day an attorney was made to leave the deposition room for not having a deposition visa and was replaced by a very unprepared associate who struggled with the banished attorney’s very sketchy deposition outline. It was painful to watch.
A non-free one-day trip to Korea
During prepping of his Japanese client’s deponent, I asked my attorney client if he had trouble getting his deposition visa, and he told me that his deposition visa had been arranged by the “other side” in the litigation. I quietly let him know that he was mistaken and that he needed to reveal the problem to his client, because he would not be able to participate in the deposition itself without a proper deposition visa. He needed to make an overnight trip to Korea to get a deposition visa, since (at least at the time) you needed to leave Japan to acquire a visa.
When pigs fly!
A witness in an MLM-related litigation, having been asked about his income, said that he would never answer the question, regardless of what they do to him. His attorney apparently told him on a hastily called break that he should answer the question, because he suddenly became cooperative.
Ask for favors much?
The accused in a US tax evasion case leaned over to the me, the interpreter, appealing to me that the way things go in the deposition will affect whether he goes to jail. I agreed, but it did not affect my interpreting (or his fate).
Tokyo is not in California.
As a correction to my “It was my son-in-law,” the check interpreter offered “It was the spouse of my daughter”. Right, but this was Japan, and same-sex marriages don’t happen. To be fair, the check interpreter, although a native Japanese, had lived long years in the US and probably was coming at this problem from a Californian cultural context, which was wrong in this case.
And there you have it, just a few of the views that depositions give one of the real (and sometimes unreal) world lived in by the participants.