Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff Josalyn Watson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Lily A. Lovegren (“Defendant”) and Does 1-10 for motor vehicle negligence. 

On November 2, 2022, Defendant filed an answer. 

On May 17, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel Plaintiff’s responses to form and special interrogatories and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses to the interrogatories without objections by May 27, 2023. The Court also granted Defendant’s motion to compel responses to request for production and production of items and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses and to produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things without objections by May 27, 2023. 

On July 14, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for terminating sanctions to be heard on August 21, 2023.  Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 

The trial is currently set for October 5, 2023. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Defendant requests that the Court issue terminating sanctions and monetary sanctions of $455.34. 

LEGAL STANDARD  

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 gives the court discretion to impose sanctions against parties engaging in a misuse of the discovery process. A court may impose terminating sanctions by striking pleadings of the party engaged in misuse of discovery or entering default judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (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.) 

While the court has discretion to impose terminating sanctions, these sanctions "should be appropriate to the dereliction and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery." (Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.3d at p. 793.) "[A] court is empowered to apply the ultimate sanction against a litigant who persists in the outright refusal to comply with his discovery obligations." (Ibid.)  

DISCUSSION

 
On May 17, 2023, the Court granted Defendant’s motions to compel discovery responses. The Court ordered Plaintiff to serve verified responses by May 27, 2023.  Plaintiff has not served responses. 

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 monetary sanctions of $455.34, based on 2 hours of attorney work at a rate of $160.17 per hour, 1 hour of paralegal time at a rate of $75.00 per hour and 1 $60.00 filling fee. The Court will not award sanctions based on paralegal time. The Court awards monetary sanctions of $380.34 based on 2 hours of attorney time and 1 $60 filing fee.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.290, subd. (c), 2031.300, subd. (c), 2023.010, subd. (g).)

  The Court dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendant under Code of Civil Procedure section 1023.030, subdivision (b)(3).