ORDER

JUDITH C. McCARTHY, Magistrate Judge.

This Order addresses the requests made by the parties in four separate letters to the Court. (Docket Nos. 70, 71, 72, and 73).

First, Defendants are directed to produce the additional documents from the payroll company, referenced in Defendants' January 17, 2020 letter, (Docket No. 72), on or before January 31, 2020. Plaintiffs' request for "appropriate sanctions" relating to this issue, (Docket No. 71), is denied.

Second, with respect to which party must pay for the cost of an interpreter, (Docket Nos. 72 and 73), the Court ultimately places this burden on the Defendants as the party taking the deposition. Typically, the cost of an interpreter is borne by the party taking the deposition, and is recoverable as a "cost" should that party ultimately prevail in the litigation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1); see also Sai Qin Chen v. East Market Rest., Inc., 13 Civ. 3902 (HBP), 2018 WL 3970894, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2018) (awarding plaintiffs interpreter fees in wage and hour case and noting that they were "recoverable costs because they are included in those reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by attorneys and ordinarily charged to their clients") (internal quotations omitted); Allende v. Unitech Design, Inc., 783 F.Supp.2d 509, 515 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2011) (awarding plaintiffs costs in a wage and hour case for interpreters that they used to aid them in deposing the defendants' witnesses). Defendants, thus, are required to pay for an interpreter if necessary. The Court, however, cautions Defendants that should they proceed without an interpreter, and later determine that they need an interpreter, they will not be permitted to take a second deposition of that individual.

Accordingly, (1) on or before January 31, 2020, Defendants are to produce the additional payroll documents; (2) Defendants are responsible for paying for an interpreter if necessary; and (3) Plaintiffs' request for sanctions is denied.

SO ORDERED.