Court Disallows Costs of Travel to Remote Deposition
Wouldn’t it seem odd to incur expenses for traveling to a remote deposition? After all, one of the most compelling benefits of a remote deposition is the elimination of costs associated with traveling to and from a physical location for an in-person examination. No travel, no travel expenses.
That’s how it seemed to the court in Li v. Chung LLC, No. 3:24-cv-00025 (W.D. Va., Nov. 7, 2025), a case involving allegations that the defendant, a barbershop owner, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and related state-law claims by failing to pay overtime to the plaintiff. On the evening before the second day of the plaintiff’s remote deposition, defense counsel discovered that one of the plaintiff’s attorneys had been administratively suspended by the Virginia State Bar for failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements. The next day, armed with this information, defense counsel objected to continuing the deposition, questioning the ethics of proceeding until the bar licensing issue was resolved (a topic we’ve written about in recent weeks).
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.
Counsel for both parties sought the assistance of the court. Did the attorney’s Virginia license suspension affect his ability to practice in federal court in Virginia? (Yes, the court ruled.) Did the attorney’s license suspension affect the license status of another member of the same firm – the one actually representing the plaintiff during the deposition – who been admitted pro hac vice based on her association with the suspended attorney? (Yes, the court ruled.)
Matters were at a standstill until two days later, when the plaintiff’s attorney was able to restore his license to “good standing” with Virginia bar regulators. But that left the question of responsibility for costs associated with the planned second day of the plaintiff’s deposition, which did not take place due to the licensing dispute. Particularly, the responsibility for a language interpreter’s “appearance,” “travel,” and “mileage” to the remote deposition.
As it turned out, defense counsel had arranged for the language interpreter to travel from the interpreter’s office in New Jersey to the attorney’s office in Richmond, Virginia. Defense counsel requested reimbursement for those travel expenses, but the court decided here that they were not reasonable under the circumstances.
“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,” the court ruled. “Thus, this amount will be excluded from the expenses awarded.”
The court also exercised its discretion to decline to require reimbursement for the defendant’s attorneys’ fees associated with the failed second day of the remote deposition. The bar licensing matter, and its impact on the deposition, were caused by errors in judgment, the court reasoned, and not bad faith. At no point did the attorney misrepresent his bar admission status, and he was in good standing when his co-counsel sought pro hac vice admission.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d)(2) authorizes federal trial courts to impose “an appropriate sanction” — including the reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred by any party — on any person who impedes, delays, or frustrates the fair examination of the deponent. Sanctions are typically on deposition misconduct and delays, such as when a deponent refuses to finish sitting for a deposition, or when an attorney excessively objects and interjects during a deposition.
Sanctions for deposition misconduct are a topic we’ve written about frequently on this blog: the high price often paid for failing to appear for a properly noticed deposition, making the case for sanctions over deposition misconduct, and exploring the circumstances when pretrial discovery lapses should, or should not, lead to terminating sanctions.