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 13, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ unopposed motion to compel verified responses to form and special interrogatories and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses, without objections, by August 13, 2023. 

On August 8, 2023, the Court: (1) granted Defendants’ unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ request for production of documents and ordered Plaintiff to provide verified responses and produce the documents, electronically stored information, and/or other things requested, without objections, by September 11, 2023, and (2) granted Defendants’ unopposed motion to deem admitted the matters specified in Defendants’ requests for admission. 

Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s July 13, 2023, order.  Defendants filed their motion for terminating sanctions before the deadline for Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s August 8, 2023 order. 

Based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's July 13, 2023 order, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions and dismisses the case. Defendants do not request monetary sanctions.