There is no Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governing interpreters at a deposition. Rule 43(d) addresses interpreters in the context of trial testimony. Rule 28, which is frequently cited for the point, contains no interpreter provision at all. And 28 U.S.C. section 1827 is narrower than the way it is usually quoted. What fills the gap is practice, and in most cases the standard of the forum state.
Rule 43(d), quoted properly
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 43(d) provides: "The court may appoint an interpreter of its choosing; fix reasonable compensation to be paid from funds provided by law or by one or more parties; and tax the compensation as costs."
Three features are worth noticing. It is permissive, giving the court a power rather than imposing a requirement on the parties. It says nothing about credentials, certification, or qualification standards. And it sits within Rule 43, which addresses taking testimony in open court. It is a trial provision, and treating it as the rule for a deposition stretches it past what it says.
Rule 28 does not mention interpreters
This one is worth stating plainly because it appears in a great deal of vendor and blog content. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 28 governs before whom a deposition may be taken: an officer authorised to administer oaths by federal law or by the law of the place of examination, or a person appointed by the court. It addresses the deposition officer. It does not address interpreters, interpreter qualifications, or interpreter oaths.
If you encounter a citation to Rule 28 for an interpreter proposition, it is wrong, and it is the kind of error worth checking the rest of the source for.
The Court Interpreters Act is narrower than quoted
Title 28 U.S.C. section 1827 directs the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to establish a program to facilitate the use of certified and otherwise qualified interpreters in judicial proceedings instituted by the United States. It provides for the Director to prescribe and certify interpreter qualifications, and provides that otherwise qualified interpreters may be used only where no certified interpreter is reasonably available.
The scope phrase does the work: judicial proceedings instituted by the United States. That is not the same universe as every federal civil case, and it is certainly not a general mandate governing a privately noticed deposition between private parties in a diversity case. The Act is real, important, and routinely stretched beyond its terms.
What "federally certified" actually means
This is the single most useful fact in this article, because it is stated incorrectly on a great many law firm and vendor pages. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts recognises three categories of federal court interpreter:
- Certified interpreters, who have passed the Administrative Office certification examination.
- Professionally qualified interpreters, who meet one of several alternative criteria, including passing a U.S. Department of State or United Nations interpreter examination, or holding membership in bodies such as AIIC or TAALS.
- Language skilled or ad hoc interpreters, who can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court the ability to interpret court proceedings from English into a designated language and from that language into English.
Certification programs have historically been developed for Spanish, Navajo, and Haitian Creole. The Navajo and Haitian Creole certification programs are no longer offered. In practice, therefore, a federally certified interpreter today means a Spanish interpreter.
The consequence is immediate. If a provider offers you a federally certified interpreter in Mandarin, Korean, Armenian, Russian, or any language other than Spanish, the claim does not correspond to anything the federal courts issue. They may well be an excellent interpreter with genuine credentials, but the label is wrong, and the label is the thing you would be relying on. Our article on federal court interpreter certification covers the examination itself.
So what standard applies to a federal deposition
With no federal rule on point, the practical answer is a combination of three things.
First, the forum state's standard, which is usually the sensible default and is sometimes more than a default: Rule 28 itself looks to the law of the place of examination for the officer's authority to administer oaths. For a deposition taken in California, that means the state framework is the natural reference point, including the certified and registered tiers and the on-the-record credential statement. Those are set out in certified or registered at a deposition and the record statement.
Second, party agreement. Where the case is significant and the language is scarce, agreeing the interpreter standard with opposing counsel in advance, in writing, removes an argument that is otherwise available later.
Third, the professional standard. Consecutive rendering for sworn testimony, teaming for long proceedings, and disclosure of conflicts apply regardless of which court the case is in, because they are about the reliability of the record rather than about jurisdiction.
Put the standard in the notice or a stipulation
Because no federal rule sets the standard, the cheapest protection is to establish it between the parties in advance rather than discover a disagreement afterwards. On any federal matter where interpreted testimony is likely to be significant, a short written agreement covering four points removes almost all of the later argument.
- The credential standard: for a deposition taken in California, certified or registered under the state framework, with the number identified in advance.
- The mode: consecutive rendering of questions and answers on the record.
- Whether a check interpreter may attend, and the protocol for raising an objection to a rendering.
- How foreign-language exhibits will be handled, and whether written translations will be prepared and marked in advance.
None of that is controversial and opposing counsel rarely objects, because both sides carry the same risk from an unreliable transcript. Getting it into the notice or a stipulation turns an unregulated area into a documented agreement.
Where the state credential does carry weight in federal court
It is easy to read the absence of a federal rule as meaning credentials do not matter federally. In practice the opposite is closer to the truth, for a structural reason worth understanding.
Rule 28(a) requires a deposition to be taken before an officer authorised to administer oaths either by federal law or by the law of the place of examination, or a person appointed by the court. That reference to the law of the place of examination is why the forum state's machinery is the natural reference point for the mechanics of the deposition. For a federal deposition taken in California, the state's certified and registered tiers are the credentials that exist, are checkable against a public list, and would be the obvious benchmark if the interpreter's qualification were ever examined.
There is also the cost dimension. Rule 43(d) permits the court to tax interpreter compensation as costs, and while it sets no credential condition, a party asking a federal court to tax an expense is in a stronger position with a credentialed interpreter than with someone whose qualifications were never established.
Practical guidance
- Do not cite Rule 28 for anything to do with interpreters.
- Do not describe an interpreter as federally certified in a language other than Spanish.
- Do not cite 28 U.S.C. 1827 as a general requirement for private federal civil depositions.
- Do apply the forum state standard, and say so on the record.
- Do ask for the credential and number in advance, exactly as you would in state court.
One further situation worth anticipating. In multi-district and multi-state litigation, depositions in the same matter are frequently taken in several states, and the interpreter credential landscape differs in each. A witness deposed in California, Texas and New York may be interpreted by three people holding three different credentials, none of which transfers.
Where that is foreseeable, agreeing a single standard across the matter at the outset is worth the small effort it takes. It produces consistent terminology across transcripts, which matters when passages are compared later, and it avoids an argument in which one deposition in the series is attacked on a basis that does not apply to the others.
Sources
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 28 and 43, and 28 U.S.C. section 1827, via the Legal Information Institute; federal court interpreter categories published by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; California Government Code sections 68560.5 and 68561. Verified against the primary sources in July 2026.
AMS supplies interpreters for federal and state proceedings across the United States. See our legal interpreting service or request a quote.