Grismore

MEMORANDUM **

Kathy Grismore appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action as a sanction under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) and 41(b) for failure to comply with a discovery order. Grismore also appeals from the judgment awarding attorneys’ fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.2002) (discovery rulings); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.1987) (dismissal); Guerrero v. RJM Acquisitions LLC, 499 F.3d 926, 933 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (attorneys’ fees). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant’s motion to compel discovery responses because the information sought was relevant to the claims and defenses. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) (describing permissible discovery); Hallett, 296 F.3d at 751 (stating that broad discretion is vested in the trial court to permit discovery).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action because Grismore failed to comply with a discovery order after the district court warned her that noncompliance could result in dismissal, and she…