Oscar Guzman v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc - Trevor Ingold we believe is the attorney for the defendant. Per the Los Angeles court's case summary Mr. Ingold is listed as defendant's counsel. His name also appears on pleadings filed with the court as the lead attorney for defendant.

In this tentative ruling the Los Angeles County judge hits attorney Trevor Ingold's client for a huge $2138 in sanctions. Per the ruling this is what happened:

Trevor Ingold, Esq. represented Honda in a defective vehicle claim brought by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff served "form" interrogatories. "Form" means these are pre-approved and pre-prepared written questions provided by the California Judicial Council. They are used every day and one purpose, we believe, for having these standard questions is to avoid discovery disputes.

Form interrogatories seem to work well for California attorneys - except for Trevor Ingold and his firm.

Mr. Ingold made an objection to a form interrogatory claiming the "incident" was vague and ambiguous and he could not figure out how to answer the question. The interrogatory, number 12.1, simply asks a party to list witnesses to the incident involved in the lawsuit.

In our opinion, either an attorney like Trevor Ingold who cannot figure out witnesses is incompetent or an obstructionist racking up unnecessary legal fees to the detriment of their client.

Here the judge ruled it was known what the incident was, which had been specifically defined down to the VIN number of the vehicle.

The court concluded the Lewis Brisbois / Ingold's arguments were "without merit" and had not provided facts to justify the objection.

Attorney Ingold then claimed a list of witnesses was protected by the attorney-client privilege.

The judge ruled this argument was without any factual merit or legal support. Worse, the judge said Ingold had not shown facts supporting the objection that information sought was privileged.

Then, inconsistently, Trevor Ingold's firm claimed its client could provide the information sought as the list of witnesses were provided in a confidential document being filed. Ingold, though wanted the document kept private from the public. The court denied that request - meaning Honda's document is now a matter of public record for anyone to view.

For his efforts the court then issued sanctions of $2138.

To recap what attorney Trevor Ingold accomplished:

- He filed one of his client's private, confidential documents with the court and it is now a public record after the judge refused to seal it from public access.

- He argued he (and apparently his entire firm and his client) was not smart enough to figure out what the incident in a lawsuit was.

- He made objections to a form interrogatory the court said were without factual merit and without legal support.

- He likely charged his client a lot of money.

- He caused $2138 in sanctions per the tentative order.

We looked on the Lewis Brisbois website for Mr. Ingold's accomplishments. None are listed. Not a single one. Maybe they are somewhere besides his bio page, but we could not find them.

Now he has some.

Note: It is possible an associate was responsible for the discovery objections. Unless Lewis Brisbois would prefer another one of its attorneys be listed as responsible for causing these high sanctions, we can only rely on the court records. The Los Angeles County online records only list Trevor Ingold as defendant's attorney, and Mr. Ingold would still be responsible for overseeing and approving the work and legal arguments being made by an associate.

Second note: The court's tentative ruling says the request for sanctions is granted without saying if it is against the attorney, the client, or both. We looked at publicly available documents on the Los Angeles County website and the notice of motion plainly states sanctions are sought against Honda and/or Honda's counsel. From that we deduce the attorney was sanctioned. Whether that is Trevor Ingold or his firm Lewis Brisbois is immaterial in our view as Mr. Ingold is listed as the attorney of record and the lead attorney on the pleadings.

Update: it appears from the court's free available records that it was Trevor Ingold who orally argued this matter in court, and after hearing Mr. Ingold's oral argument the court adopted its tentative ruling as the final order of the court.

Trevor Ingold was admitted to the California Bar in 1997. Bar Number 193227.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP

633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, California 90071

Law School: Berkeley Boalt Hall