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 July 14, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff to respond to form and special interrogatories and request for production and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified code-compliant responses without objections by August 14, 2023. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested without objections by August 14, 2023.  The Court ordered Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel to pay Defendant $780 in sanctions by August 14, 2023. 

Plaintiff has not complied with the Court’s July 14, 2023 order. 

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 $460 in monetary sanctions for misuse of the discovery process. This amount is based on 2 hours of attorney’s work at a rate of $200.00 per hour and 1 $60.00 filling fee. The Court finds the request is reasonable and grants it. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS the motion of Defendant Continental Apartments for terminating sanctions. 

The Court dismisses the complaint filed by Plaintiff Elena Angelova with prejudice under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (d)(3). 

The Court GRANTS Defendant Continental Apartments’ request for sanctions and orders Plaintiff Elena Angelova and Plaintiff’s counsel to pay Defendant $460 within 30 days of the hearing on the motion. 

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.