Hershey v. Geragos & Geragos CA2/2
B330853
Cal. Ct. App.Aug 21, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs (Hershey et al.) sued their former attorneys (Geragos & Geragos, APC, and Mark J. Geragos) for legal malpractice regarding product liability and medical malpractice claims.
- Multiple discovery disputes arose, leading the trial court to appoint a discovery referee (retired judge) to address contested interrogatories and document requests.
- Respondents (Geragos & Geragos) filed motions to compel supplemental discovery responses and sought monetary sanctions for discovery misuse under several Code of Civil Procedure sections.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel, Ron A. Rosen Janfaza, did not file oppositions but did serve supplemental responses after the motions were filed.
- The discovery referee found multiple instances of discovery misuse by plaintiffs' counsel (e.g., unmeritorious objections, evasive responses, violating court discovery orders, and dilatory tactics).
- The trial court adopted the referee’s recommendations, imposing over $22,000 in monetary sanctions against plaintiffs’ counsel across three separate orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of <$5,000 Sanctions Order | Sanctions order should be appealable | Orders under $5,000 are not individually appealable | Not appealable; dismissed |
| Sanctions Despite No Opposition Filed | No opposition to motions; sanctions improper | Discovery was compelled regardless of opposition; court could award sanctions | Court may impose sanctions |
| Statutory Authority to Impose Sanctions | Cited statutes (2023.010, 2023.030) do not authorize monetary sanctions alone | Also cited 2030.300, 2031.310, which directly authorize monetary sanctions | Statutes authorize sanctions |
| Mootness By Supplemental Responses | Provided discovery after motions—motions were moot, so sanctions not warranted | Providing discovery post-motion doesn’t preclude sanctions for initial misuse | Sanctions still warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Calhoun v. Vallejo City Unified School Dist., 20 Cal.App.4th 39 (aggregation of sanctions orders to meet appealability threshold is improper)
- Pratt v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 168 Cal.App.4th 165 (trial courts can impose discovery sanctions under Sections 2023.010 and 2023.030)
- Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.4th 1 (discussing remedies for misuse of discovery)
- Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, 148 Cal.App.4th 390 (trial courts may impose sanctions even if the underlying discovery dispute is resolved)