Two different questions get asked about deposition interpreter fees. Who pays now is settled mostly by practice: the noticing party arranges and pays. Who pays at the end is settled by statute, and California allows the fees of a certified or registered interpreter as a recoverable cost. That single qualifier is the reason the credential tier you book has a financial consequence.
Who pays at the time
The party who notices the deposition ordinarily arranges the interpreter and pays for the service as a cost of taking the deposition. This is a strong and near-universal convention rather than a statutory command, and it is worth being precise about that, because a claim circulates in vendor and blog content that Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.510 makes the noticing party responsible for the interpreter. It does not. Section 2025.510(b) provides that the party noticing the deposition bears the cost of the transcription unless the court orders otherwise on motion and for good cause. Transcription is the reporter's work product. The section does not mention interpreters.
A second citation to retire at the same time: Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.320 is regularly cited for interpreter requirements and contains none. It governs the deposition officer, requiring impartiality and independence, equal availability of services and products to all parties, a prohibition on noting the deponent's demeanor, documentation of services on request, waiver of untimely objections to the officer's qualifications, and a civil penalty for violations. Its only oath-adjacent language is the opening clause, that the deposition is conducted under the supervision of an officer authorized to administer an oath.
Where a court is providing the interpreter in a civil action, Evidence Code section 752(b) supplies the apportionment rule: the record must identify the interpreter, and in civil actions the compensation is in the first instance apportioned and charged to the several parties in the proportion the court determines, and may thereafter be taxed and allowed in like manner as other costs. In criminal actions and juvenile proceedings the compensation is a charge against the court. That provision addresses court-appointed interpreters in a proceeding, and should not be stretched to cover a privately noticed deposition.
Who pays at the end, and the qualifier that matters
Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 lists the costs allowable to a prevailing party. Subdivision (a)(3) covers deposition expense, and item (B) is the one to know by heart. It allows, as a recoverable cost, the fees of a certified or registered interpreter for the deposition of a party or witness who does not proficiently speak or understand the English language. The section was last amended by Assembly Bill 828 (Stats. 2017, ch. 583), effective January 1, 2018.
Read the item slowly. It does not say "interpreter." It says certified or registered interpreter. Those are terms of art in California, defined by the Government Code sections that govern the court interpreter program, and they describe two specific credential tiers rather than a general standard of competence. The statute has written the credential into the definition of the recoverable expense.
The practical consequence runs in a direction that surprises people. Booking a cheaper interpreter outside those tiers does not simply buy a lower-credentialed service. It buys an expense that is materially harder to recover, in a case where the underlying deposition cost may run into four figures across a multi-day matter. The saving on the invoice is routinely smaller than the exposure it creates.
Which tiers qualify
California runs two spoken-language credential tracks under the court interpreter program. Government Code section 68561(a) requires a certified court interpreter for languages the Judicial Council has designated, with section 68566 defining a certified court interpreter as a person holding a valid certificate from a certification entity approved by the Judicial Council. Section 68561(d) covers languages that are not designated: those interpreters are qualified by the court, and interpreters who pass the English fluency examination are known as registered interpreters. Section 68561(c) permits a court to appoint an interpreter without certification in a designated language for good cause.
Both certified and registered interpreters fall inside the cost item. What falls outside it is the bilingual employee, the relative, the vendor's uncredentialed contractor, and the interpreter who is credentialed in another state but not enrolled in California. Our article on bilingual staff versus certified interpreters covers why that distinction matters for accuracy as well as for cost.
Build the record that supports the claim
A cost claim is only as good as the record behind it, and the useful record is created at the deposition rather than reconstructed a year later. California already requires the interpreter to state their credential on the record at a deposition. Government Code section 68561(h), added by Assembly Bill 2370 (Stats. 2014, ch. 424) and effective January 1, 2015, requires the interpreter to state their qualifications including their certification or registration number, their oath status, and that they presented their badge and photo identification to both parties.
That statement is, incidentally, close to a perfect exhibit for a memorandum of costs. It puts the credential and the number in a transcript that both sides have. If your interpreter never makes it, ask. The full sequence is set out in our article on what a deposition interpreter must state on the record.
For the cost memorandum itself, keep the supporting file simple and contemporaneous:
- The deposition transcript page containing the interpreter's credential statement and number.
- The interpreter invoice, showing the assignment date, the proceeding, the language, and the billing unit.
- Confirmation of the credential tier from the provider at the time of booking, in writing.
- A note of the deponent's language need, which is usually already evident from the notice or from counsel's correspondence.
Where the certified interpreter is required rather than merely recoverable
Cost recovery is one reason to book a credentialed interpreter. It is not the only one, and in some proceedings the credential is not optional. Government Code section 68560.5 defines a court proceeding to include a deposition in a civil case filed in a court of record, which brings depositions inside the section 68561 certification framework rather than leaving them to party preference.
A separate and stricter rule applies to medical examinations that an insurer or defendant requests in a civil damages case, where an interpreter is required outright and the consequence of proceeding without one is exclusion rather than a cost dispute. That is set out in our article on interpreters at defense medical examinations.
When the cost is challenged
Costs are claimed by memorandum and challenged by motion to tax. In that posture, the question a court is being asked about an interpreter line is usually one of two things: whether the expense falls within an item the statute allows, and whether it was reasonably necessary to the conduct of the litigation rather than merely convenient. Section 1033.5(a)(3)(B) helps on the first question because it names the expense explicitly, which is a stronger position than arguing an item into a general category.
The credential qualifier is where a well-prepared opponent will push. If the interpreter was certified or registered and the transcript records the number, there is very little to argue about. If the credential is unknown, the objection writes itself, and the response depends on reconstructing evidence about a person who has long since moved on to other assignments. The asymmetry of effort between recording the credential at the time and proving it afterwards is the entire practical point of this article.
Multi-day and teamed proceedings deserve a note. Where a long deposition required two interpreters working as a team, the invoice reflects two credentialed professionals, and the supporting record should reflect why the proceeding required teaming. Our article on interpreter teams for long proceedings explains the accuracy rationale, which is the substance of that explanation.
The federal contrast
Practitioners moving between state and federal matters should be careful not to carry the California analysis across. In federal civil practice the interpreter provision is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(d), which allows the court to appoint an interpreter of its choosing, fix reasonable compensation payable from funds provided by law or by one or more parties, and tax the compensation as costs. It is a discretionary appointment and taxing power rather than a scheduled cost item with a credential qualifier written into it.
Two related corrections are worth carrying with you. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28 governs who may take a deposition and contains no interpreter provision, despite being cited for one. And 28 U.S.C. section 1827, the Court Interpreters Act, establishes the interpreter program for judicial proceedings instituted by the United States, which is a narrower scope than the general federal civil deposition many summaries imply.
What this means when you are choosing a vendor
Price the assignment on the credential tier rather than on the hourly figure. A quote that will not name the tier, or will not supply the certification or registration number of the assigned interpreter in advance, is a quote for an expense you may not be able to recover. For the wider structure of interpreter pricing, including how half-day and full-day units and cancellation windows work, see what a court interpreter costs in California.
Sources
California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1033.5, 2025.320, and 2025.510, and California Evidence Code section 752, available through California Legislative Information; California Government Code sections 68560.5, 68561, and 68566; Assembly Bill 828 (Stats. 2017, ch. 583); Assembly Bill 2370 (Stats. 2014, ch. 424). Verified against the primary sources in July 2026. This article describes statutory provisions and is not legal advice for a specific matter.
AMS supplies certified and registered court interpreters and confirms the credential tier in writing before the assignment. See our deposition interpreting service or work with our insurance defense team.