This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles. (July 2026) The examples and perspectives in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (July 2026) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Terminating sanctions (also referred to as "case terminating sanctions") are a legal procedure by which a judge may dispose of a party's case (by dismissal or default judgment) for certain misconduct by the party or the party's attorney.^[1] Often imposed in the discovery phase of a case, this action is considered an extreme and unusual step that is reserved for egregious or repeated misbehavior before the court.^[2] Other situations in which a judge might impose terminating sanctions include a party's destruction of evidence or repeated bad faith litigation tactics.^[3]

California Civil Code, Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.030 provides that a court "may impose a terminating sanction" in certain situations related to discovery in civil cases.^[4] The court may strike a pleading (or a portion of a pleading), stay the case, dismiss the case, or enter a default judgment against a party that engages in misuse of the discovery process.^[4]

In federal courts, discovery sanctions are governed by Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.^[5] Although the phrase "terminating sanctions" is not used, the potential actions a judge may take under Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(iii)-(vi) are the same types of sanctions described above under California law (i.e., striking of pleadings, granting a stay, dismissal, or default judgment).^[5] In a case applying the standards of Rule 37, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court's ruling that dismissal of claims made by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was proper because the agency had been "engaging in dramatic abuse of the discovery process."^[6]

In addition to statutory authority, courts have the inherent power to sanction bad faith or abusive litigation tactics.^[7] In the case of Leon v. IDX Systems Corp., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court's dismissal sanction after it found that the plaintiff had "despoiled evidence by deleting 2,200 files from his [company-issued] laptop computer during the pendency of the litigation."^[7]

This law-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by adding missing information.

• v
• t
• e