However, three appellate panels have taken the opposite view. ( Russell v. General Motors Corp. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1119 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 750]; Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 380, 388-389 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 43]; Rao v. Campo, (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1557, 1567-1568 [ 285 Cal.Rptr. 691].) We now add our voice to this cacophony.

The majority view is that such orders, which were nonappealable prior to the 1990 effective date of Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 subdivision (k) (see, e.g., Slemaker v. Woolley (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1377, 1382 [ 255 Cal.Rptr. 532]), are still nonappealable even if the amount of the sanction exceeds $750. ( Hanna v. BankAmerica Business Credit, Inc. (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 913 [ 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 430]; Peterson v. General Motors (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1330 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 768, 769]; Russell v. General Motors Corp. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1119 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 750]; Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 380, 388-389 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 43]; Rao v. Campo (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1557, 1566-1568 [ 285 Cal.Rptr. 691].) The minority view is that subdivision (k) makes such orders immediately appealable if the amount of the sanction exceeds $750.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (k).) In the following cases, the Courts of Appeal have concluded discovery sanctions orders are not appealable: Russell v. General Motors Corp. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1114 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 750] (Third Dist.); Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 380 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 43] (Second Dist., Div. Seven); Rao v. Campo (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1557 [ 285 Cal.Rptr. 691] (Second Dist., Div. Three). Two courts have disagreed: Greene v. Amante (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 684 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 571] (Fourth Dist., Div. Three) and Kohan v. Cohan (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 967 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 474] (Second Dist., Div. One).

We assume for the purpose of this discussion that although Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (k) expressly authorizes appeals of certain sanction orders, it does not include discovery sanction orders. ( Rao v. Campo, supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1566-1568; Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 380, 384-389 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 43]; Russell v. General Motors Corp. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1119 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 750]; contra, Kohan v. Cohan (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 967, 969-971 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 474]; Greene v. Amante (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 684, 688-690 [ 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 571].) (3) The unusual circumstances here, however, bring into play an additional exception to the one final judgment rule.

They otherwise can be reviewed only in the appeal from the final judgment in the main action. ( Russell v. General Motors Corp. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1119.) The order awarding discovery sanctions was thus part of the judgment in the present matter, and is beyond our review for want of a timely appeal.