Wednesday, November 12, 2025
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Failed Appeal From Discovery Order Can Trigger Fee Award
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal held Monday that Code of Civil Procedure sections authorizing monetary sanctions for opposing a meritorious discovery motion provide a basis for the trial judge to require a party who unsuccessfully appealed an order compelling production of documents to pay the respondent’s attorney fees on appeal.
While affirming an order by Orange Superior Court Judge Lon F. Hurwitz to defendant David H. Tedder to pay the attorney fees incurred by plaintiff Dan W. Baer in defending a discovery order on appeal, the judge erred, Acting Presiding Justice Maurice Sanchez said, in not rendering Teddler’s Marina del Rey lawyer, Robert K. Kent. jointly and severally liable for payment given that he was also an appellant.
Monday’s opinion comes in litigation that has been ongoing since 1996.The opinion is the ninth one in the dispute between Tedder and Baer.
Eighth Appeal
The eighth opinion, which was not certified for publication, was filed July 25, 2022. Tedder and Kent appealed from an order by then-Orange Superior Court Judge Glenda Sanders, now an arbitrator/mediator, compelling discovery and imposing on them a $10,475 sanction.
Sanchez said in that opinion:
“[W]e agree with the trial court’s determination Tedder’s actions were not substantially justified. Moreover, this was not the first time the court had to reprimand Tedder and order him to cooperate during discovery. Tedder’s history of evasive tactics and non-responsiveness hindered Baer’s ability to prepare for depositions and respond to pending summary judgment motions. The court’s sanction order was properly designed to prevent Tedder from benefitting from his discovery violations.”
Tedder is a former attorney. He resigned from the State Bar of California on Feb. 16, 2001, with charges pending.
Baer was at one time a nonattorney in Tedder’s law firm.
Present Appeal
The appeal acted on yesterday was brought by Kent and Tedder to contest Hurwitz’s Dec. 5, 2023 order to Tedder, alone, to pay Baer $113,532.50 to compensate him for attorney fees he expended in connection with the eighth appeal.
Sanchez wrote:
“The trial court correctly concluded that sections 2023.030(a) and 2031.320(b) authorized an award of appellate attorney’s fees to Baer. The amount of fees awarded, with one reduction, was reasonable.
“The trial court erred, however, by not imposing the fees against both Tedder and Kent. When sanctions are imposed jointly and severally against a litigant and counsel, each has an independent ability to appeal: It is unnecessary for the attorney to join the appeal in order to afford the client appellate relief. Kent therefore was not required to appeal the sanctions order and did so voluntarily. As such, he should be held responsible along with Tedder for the additional attorney’s fees that Baer was forced to incur to uphold the sanctions order and obtain full compensation for Tedder and Kent’s misuse of the discovery process.”
Sanchez ordered the award lowered from $113,532.50 to $101,805, a cut of $11,727.50. He determined that only 25 hours, not 31.9 hours, should have been spent in drafting the respondent’s brief and that one attorney’s hourly rate of $975 was excessive and must be reduced to $775.
Applicability of Sections
Explaining why the cited Code of Civil Procedure sections, which authorize discovery sanctions, apply to fees expended in appeals, Sanchez said:
“A statute authorizing an award of attorney’s fees in the trial court ordinarily authorizes an award of fees incurred on appeal unless the statute specifically provides otherwise.”
He reasoned:
“Sections 2023.030(a) and 2031.320(b) authorize recovery of attorney’s fees and do not specifically preclude recovery of attorney’s fees on appeal….Sections 2023.030(a) and 2031.320(b) therefore authorized Baer’s recovery of attorney’s fees expended in connection with the appeal of the sanctions order.”
The jurist added:
“Because the trial court imposed the initial monetary sanctions of $10,475 against Tedder and Kent jointly and severally, the court expressly or impliedly found that Kent had engaged in conduct subjecting him to sanctions. By appealing the order imposing sanctions, Kent, along with Tedder, forced Baer to incur additional attorney’s fees and costs to uphold the sanctions and obtain full compensation for Tedder and Kent’s misuse of the discovery process. The order awarding Baer appellate attorney’s fees therefore will be modified to impose those fees against Tedder and Kent jointly and severally.”
The case is Baer v. Tedder, 2025 S.O.S. 3193.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company