Sanctions: Lawyer must pay some expenses resulting from cancelled deposition

Where the plaintiff’s deposition was cancelled, after it was discovered that his lawyer failed to maintain good standing before the Virginia State Bar, the lawyer must cover at least some deposition expenses associated with the abandoned deposition.

Background

This matter is before the court on Stanley Chung and Chung LLC’s motion for attorney’s fees and deposition expense. Defendants seek to recover attorney’s fees and reasonable expenses related to the suspended deposition of Jianxin Li on May 21, 2025.

Schweitzer

The defendants adequately demonstrate that Li’s counsel, Aaron B. Schweitzer’s “failure to timely cure his administrative suspension impeded, delayed, and frustrated Li’s Deposition.” By failing to maintain good standing before the Virginia State Bar and continuing to represent plaintiffs before this court for two months with a suspended Virginia license, Schweitzer clearly violated the local rules.

This serious oversight resulted in the weeks-long postponement of Li’s deposition, as well as several hours of wasted translator, court reporter and attorney resources. Consequently, the court concludes that it is appropriate to require Schweitzer to cover at least some deposition expenses associated with the abandoned deposition, including the costs of the interpreter services, court reporter services and transcription.

However, the court does not impose the cost of attorney’s fees on Schweitzer. Although defendants provide a total number of hours, their descriptions include a long list of tasks, some of which are not necessarily attributable to Schweitzer’s administrative suspension or to the delayed deposition. Further, the defendants do not provide the court with any information regarding a “customary fee for like work.”

Even if the defendants’ filing complied with the local rules, the court nevertheless finds it proper to limit the amount imposed under Rule 30(d)(2) to only a portion of the deposition expenses by excluding the attorney’s fees. While Schweitzer was careless and irresponsible as to maintaining his Virginia Bar license, there is no showing that he continued to practice in Virginia with the intent of violating the licensure rules or with knowledge of his administrative suspension before Seymour raised the issue.

Although two months had passed since Schweitzer was administratively suspended by the Virginia State Bar, he restored his license within two days of the issue being raised in this case. Accordingly, the court will grant in part and deny in part the defendants’ motion for deposition expenses against Schweitzer by excluding attorney’s fees from the total award.

Troy

The court does not find Tiffany Troy’s conduct egregious enough to warrant the imposing Rule 30(d)(2) sanctions on her. Troy says that she did not have any personal knowledge of Schweitzer’s administrative suspension until Seymour informed her. Once notified, Troy immediately sought to remedy the problem. She mistakenly believed that she could still proceed with the deposition and stated that, “[a]s a courtesy, we allowed [defendants’ counsel] to continue the deposition on Wednesday, but if you are going to make a big issue out of this, then maybe we’ll need to reconsider our position.”

True, Troy was incorrect in her belief that Schweitzer’s Virginia Bar license suspension did not impact his or her ability to proceed with the scheduled deposition. But the court does not find that her conduct and terse comments to Seymour rose to the level of “obstructive tactics” or impeded a fair examination of Li.

Expenses

Defendants’ exhibits verify that the Mandarin interpreter charged $195 per hour, with a four-hour minimum, resulting in a total of $780 for the interpreter services on May 21. Plaintiffs contest the travel expenses of $775 and mileage of $448, arguing that “travel expenses and mileage are not reasonable at all for a remote deposition held by Zoom.”

Defendants respond that the interpreter’s services and travel had been paid in advance, as required by the providing agency. Although the court understands there may be drawbacks for not having an on-site interpreter, the court does not find it reasonable for defendants to expend $1,223 on an interpreter to travel from New Jersey to Richmond for a Zoom deposition. Thus, this amount will be excluded from the expenses awarded.

As for the court reporter and transcription costs, plaintiffs’ counsel had notice that the deposition would be “recorded by audio, audiovisual, or stenographic means.” Given that Li’s counsel did not object, the court finds that it is reasonable for the defendants to ask for such costs. The court thus finds reasonable expenses to be $1,440.25 (calculated as $2,663.25 in requested non-attorney’s fees expenses minus $1,223 of the disallowed interpreter travel expenses).

Defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees and deposition costs granted in part, denied in part.

Li v. Xiong, Case No. 3:24-cv-00025, Nov. 7, 2025. WDVA at Charlottesville (Yoon). VLW 025-3-463. 13 pp.