”The court determined that the appropriate sanction was requiring counsel to compensate the defendant for fees charged by the expert, the fees of the replacement expert, and the fees incurred by opposing counsel in working with the expert, in prosecuting the motion, and securing a new experts, as well as fees associated with delay. 227 F.R.D. 448 (E.D. Va. 2005). Id. at 453.
The Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct ("Virginia Rules") govern the conduct of attorneys appearing in this Court. See, e.g., Sanderson v. Boddie-Noell Enters., Inc., 227 F.R.D. 448 (E.D. Va. 2005). Applicable here is Virginia Rule 3.
(1) the degree of the wrongdoer's culpability; (2) the extent of the client's blameworthiness if the wrongful conduct is committed by his attorney, recognizing that we seldom dismiss claims against blameless clients; (3) the prejudice to the judicial process and the administration of justice; (4) the prejudice to the victim; (5) the availability of other sanctions to rectify the wrong by punishing culpable persons, compensating harmed persons, and deterring similar conduct in the future; and (6) the public interest.Sanderson v. Boddie-Noell Enter., Inc., 227 F.R.D. 448, 454 (E.D. Va. 2005). The court finds that the degree of Plaintiffs' counsel's culpability weighs heavily in favor of sanctioning the Plaintiffs' counsel, Kevin Elwell ("Elwell").
It is well-established that district courts have the power to impose appropriate sanctions for bad faith litigation conduct. See United States v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 462 (4th Cir. 1993); Sanderson v. Boddie-Noell Enter., Inc., 227 F.R.D. 448, 451 (N.D. Va. 2005) ("[A] district court can, upon a finding that a party has willfully violated a rule of conduct and/or procedure, impose an appropriate sanction."). Specifically, "[u]nder the inherent power, a court may issue orders, punish for contempt, vacate judgments obtained by fraud, conduct investigations as necessary to exercise the power, bar persons from the courtroom, assess attorney's fees, and dismiss actions."Shaffer, 11 F.3d at 462.
In any event, Stinnette's contract with Northside and his attempt to have his testimony pre-cleared is not relevant to the determination of whether the Lawyers engaged in sanctionable conduct..227 F.R.D. 448 (E.D.Vir.2005) (memorandum order).As a direct and reasonably foreseeable consequence of that communication, [the employer] prohibited [the expert] from testifying, notwithstanding that [the expert] previously had testified over a dozen times while [employed there].
In any event, Stinnette's contract with Northside and his attempt to have his testimony pre-cleared is not relevant to the determination of whether the Lawyers engaged in sanctionable conduct. 227 FRD 448 (E.D. Vir. 2005) (memorandum order). [a]s a direct and reasonably foreseeable consequence of that communication, [the employer] prohibited [the expert] from testifying, notwithstanding that [the expert] previously had testified over a dozen times while [employed there].