LEGAL STANDARD  

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 provides in part: 

“To the extent authorized by the chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, person, or attorney, and after opportunity for hearing, may impose the following sanctions against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process: 

“(a) The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct. The court may also impose this sanction on one unsuccessfully asserting that another has engaged in the misuse of the discovery process, or on any attorney who advised that assertion, or on both. If a monetary sanction is authorized by any provision of this title, the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. 

* * *

“(d) The court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following orders: 

“(1) An order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process. 

“(2) An order staying further proceedings by that party until an order for discovery is obeyed. 

“(3) An order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party. 

“(4) An order rendering a judgment by default against that party.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subds. (a), (d).) 

A violation of a discovery order supports the imposition of terminating sanctions. (Collison & Kaplan v. Hartunian (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1611, 1620.) Terminating sanctions are appropriate when a party persists in disobeying the court's orders. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 795-796 (Deyo).) 

A terminating sanction is a "drastic measure which should be employed with caution." (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 793.) "A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction." (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280.) 

DISCUSSION

 
On September 14, 2022, Defendant served form interrogatories, set one, special interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents, set one, on Plaintiff.  Responses were due on October 18, 2022.  Plaintiff failed to provide timely responses. 

On February 21, 2023, Defendant filed motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to the special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and request for production of documents.  Plaintiff did not oppose the motions.  On May 22, 2023, the Court granted the motions and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses to the interrogatories and the request for production of documents without objections by June 21, 2023, and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by June 21, 2023.  The Court also granted Defendant’s request for sanctions. 

Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s order granting Defendant’s motions to compel discovery responses.  Plaintiff has not provided a reason for her noncompliance.  

The Court grants the motion for terminating sanctions because the Court does not believe that a less severe sanction would produce compliance with the discovery rules. 

Defendant requests $2,040 in monetary sanctions for misuse of the discovery process. This amount is based on $900.00 in previously awarded sanctions (which Plaintiff has not paid), 5 hours of attorney’s work at a rate of $180.00 per hour and 1 $60.00 filling fee. 

The Court will not award sanctions based on previously awarded but unpaid sanctions.  The previous sanctions order is an independently enforceable judgment. The Court awards $600.00 in sanctions, based on 3 hours of attorney’s work and 1 filing fee.