A group of plaintiffs has accused their former attorneys of professional negligence, resulting in a complex legal battle involving significant monetary sanctions. On August 21, 2024, Teresa Hershey and others filed a complaint against Geragos & Geragos, APC, and Mark J. Geragos in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District.
The plaintiffs—Teresa Hershey, Michelle Roberts, Lori Shanyfelt, and Stephanie Small—allege that their former attorneys mishandled product liability and medical malpractice claims. The dispute escalated when multiple discovery issues arose during the case. The trial court decided to appoint a retired superior court judge as a discovery referee to manage these disputes. The defendants filed motions to compel further responses to their interrogatories and requests for production of documents. They also sought monetary sanctions under various sections of the Code of Civil Procedure for attorney’s fees and costs incurred due to these discovery orders.
The plaintiffs did not file oppositions but instead served supplemental responses. Based on findings that the plaintiffs' counsel misused discovery by making unmeritorious objections, giving evasive responses, violating court orders, and engaging in dilatory conduct designed to delay proceedings, the discovery referee recommended monetary sanctions solely against the plaintiffs' counsel. The trial court adopted these recommendations and issued three separate orders requiring the plaintiffs’ counsel to pay a total of $22,933 in monetary sanctions: $9,231.50 on March 30, 2023; $4,043 on April 4, 2023; and $9,658.50 on May 8, 2023.
On May 25, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an appeal against these orders imposing sanctions. However, they faced a significant hurdle: only sanctions exceeding $5,000 are immediately appealable under section 904.1(a)(11) and (12). Therefore, while the March 30 and May 8 orders were subject to appeal because they exceeded this threshold, the April 4 order was not.
In their appeal discussions, it was noted that an abuse of discretion occurs if a court's decision exceeds reasonable bounds or results in a miscarriage of justice. The appellants argued that since they did not file oppositions to the motions to compel discovery responses from the defendants (Geragos & Geragos), sanctions should not have been imposed. However, California Rules of Court rule 3.1348(a) allows courts to award sanctions even if no opposition is filed or if supplemental responses are provided after filing motions.
The trial court found substantial misuse of discovery by appellants' counsel under sections 2030.300(d) and 2031.310(h), which mandate sanctions for unsuccessful motions related to interrogatories or demands for production unless justified otherwise or deemed unjust by circumstances.
The judges involved in affirming these decisions were Rolf M. Treu, Charles C. Lee, Susan J. Matcham at Superior Court level with appellate judges Chavez J., Lui P.J., Hoffstadt J., upholding them at appellate level under Case ID B330853.