Short answer. Yes. Section 23 lets the court order you, as the party who gave the notice but failed to attend and proceed, to pay the other party the reasonable expenses — including attorney's fees — they incurred in attending as the notice required.
What the law says
If the party giving the notice of the taking of a deposition fails to attend and proceed therewith and another attends in person or by counsel pursuant to the notice, the court may order the party giving the notice to pay such other party the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred by him or her and his or her counsel in so attending, including reasonable attorney's fees.
Rule 23, Section 23 — Failure to attend of party giving notice. Read the full provision →
What triggers liability
The trigger is the noticing party's own failure to attend and proceed with the deposition they scheduled, while the other side actually appears in person or by counsel because the notice told them to. It is the mismatch that matters: the party who set the deposition in motion is the one who then fails to show, while the party who was merely responding to that notice does exactly what was asked of them and turns up ready to proceed.
What can be recovered
The court can order payment of the reasonable expenses incurred in attending, which expressly includes reasonable attorney's fees — not just travel costs or incidental expenses, but the cost of counsel's time spent preparing for and showing up. The word 'reasonable' anchors the amount to what was actually and sensibly spent in responding to the notice, rather than to whatever figure the attending party proposes.
Why this exists
A deposition requires the other side to prepare, coordinate schedules, and appear. A no-show by the party who set the whole thing in motion wastes that effort, so the section shifts the cost of the wasted appearance onto the party at fault. It discourages parties from noticing depositions carelessly or abandoning them at the last minute, since doing so can now carry a real financial consequence for the other side's wasted preparation.
It is discretionary
The provision says the court 'may order' payment, which signals that the court weighs the circumstances rather than imposing the sanction automatically every time a noticing party fails to show up. A court might, for instance, consider whether the failure to attend was excusable, or whether the attending party's claimed expenses were themselves reasonable, before deciding whether and how much to award. This obligation binds the noticing party specifically — it does not reach a party who simply never received notice, and it does not cover expenses the attending side would have incurred anyway, only those tied to preparing for and showing up at the deposition that never went forward.
Related provisions
- Rule 23, Section 23 — Failure to attend of party giving notice
- Rule 23, Section 24 — Failure of party giving notice to serve subpoena