Fields’ counsel requested to stay the discovery deposition and appoint a guardian to facilitate an evaluation of Fields’ mental capacity.
In a response to the motion, the plaintiffs’ counsel wrote that they would be suspending Fields’ deposition based on his counsel’s representation in order “to avoid unnecessary cost and inconvenience to many parties.” However, according to the motion, they would not be waiving the right to seek appropriate sanctions.
“Plainly, there is no point in proceeding with the deposition at the scheduled date and time, and plaintiffs are taking steps to cancel arrangements for the deposition to avoid needless expense,” the response reads.
Because Fields has made it clear he will refuse to be deposed, plaintiffs’ counsel argued that there is no need for a court-ordered stay of deposition.
However, the plaintiffs’ counsel disagreed with the need to appoint a guardian, arguing that it would be inappropriate because Fields is already represented by counsel.
Citing both federal and state cases, counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the precedent and guiding law only provides for the appointment of a guardian in cases where a defendant is unrepresented.
“David Campbell first appeared as counsel for defendant Fields in this matter on November 9, 2017, and he has continued to represent Fields in this matter since then,” the response reads. “As discussed above, both the federal rule and Virginia case law contemplate that the appointment of a guardian ad litem should be limited to circumstances where a legally incapacitated person is unrepresented.”