Ouassil v Bierman, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Number BC694857.


From the court's tentative ruling and online county case records it is Lawzilla's understanding the following occurred:

Attorney Jay McClaugherty of McClaugherty and Associates represents the defendant in an auto accident case.




The plaintiff served McClaugherty's client with various discovery requests to answer.

This included requests to produce documents, written questions to answer, and facts to admit as true or not.

"Multiple extensions" of time to provide responses were provided, but still no responses were forthcoming.

Plaintiff then filed four motions.




The judge said when discovery responses are not timely made then objections to the discovery are waived.

The court said even objections based on privilege or attorney work product are waived.




The judge's order says the Jay McClaugherty law firm did not oppose any of the motions and sanctions requests.

Motions to compel the production of documents and answers to the written questions were then granted.

Since responses to the requests for admissions were made before the hearing the judge said that motion was moot. (Note: This is in the final order and apparently a change from the tentative ruling granting the motion)




The judge then ordered $1200 in sanctions against attorney Jay McClaugherty and his client.

This situation is interesting because four motions were filed, but McClaugherty and his client only addressed one by responding to the discovery request before the hearing to make it moot.

At the same time, the motions and sanctions requests were not opposed.

We do not know what was happening behind the scenes, but why not address all four motions before the hearing, voluntarily pay plaintiff's counsel the sanctions, and get the motions taken off calendar and avoid a sanctions judgment?

Since attorney Jay McClaugherty did not oppose anything he let an order enforceable as a judgment be entered against him, and his client.

By not making an opposition McClaugherty was not in a position to even request that the sanctions not be enforced as a judgment.

Judgments against someone are a public record and you never know when or how they might adversely affect someone. Who wants to have that on their record?

Bottom line: we would want an attorney to always be looking out for their client's best interests. While we do not know what discussions there were between Jay McClaugherty and his client, it is unclear what upside was obtained by not opposing the motions and letting a sanctions order be made. Since one motion was addressed to moot the issue it does not seem like the defendant intended on defaulting by not answering the other discovery requests.

But now there is a court order directing responses to the other discovery within a short period of time. And a court order enforceable as a judgment against attorney McClaugherty and his client.

Jay McClaugherty was admitted to the California Bar in 1981. Bar Number 99063.

McClaugherty and Associates
250 West Colorado Boulevard Suite 250
Arcadia, California 91007

Law School: University of San Diego Law School

Sanctions are Recoverable as a Judgment - Analysis of the little known fact that sanctions awarded in a lawsuit can be enforced as their own separate judgment. Surprise someone by putting a lien on their bank account, home, wages, etc.