## Facts

- A law firm sued former clients for nonpayment of legal fees; defendants answered with a general denial and multiple affirmative defenses.
- Plaintiff served interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission.
- Defendants served unverified responses to special interrogatories and repeatedly used an evasive response stating they were “compiling” information and would provide it later.
- Defendants failed to timely respond to document production demands and did not respond to follow-up correspondence.
- Plaintiff moved to compel discovery and for sanctions; the trial court ordered proper responses and imposed monetary sanctions.
- Defendants did not comply with the court’s discovery order and did not provide full, straightforward discovery.
- The trial court struck defendants’ answer as a terminating sanction and entered default judgment for plaintiff.
- Defendants sought relief from the default judgment (styled as reconsideration), which was denied, and then appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by striking defendants’ answer and entering default as a terminating sanction for persistent discovery misuse and noncompliance with court orders.
2. Whether the appeal challenging the terminating sanction was frivolous, warranting sanctions against defendants and their attorneys.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the default judgment.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing terminating sanctions given defendants’ repeated evasive, incomplete, and unverified responses and failure to comply with an order compelling discovery and imposing monetary sanctions.
- The court found the appeal frivolous and imposed appellate sanctions against both defendants and their counsel.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have broad discretion under California’s discovery statutes to impose escalating sanctions, including terminating sanctions, for willful and persistent misuse of discovery.
- Evasive or incomplete interrogatory responses, failure to verify responses when required, and repeated noncompliance with discovery orders may support striking pleadings and entry of default when lesser sanctions prove ineffective.
- An appeal may be sanctionable as frivolous when it is prosecuted without a reasonable legal or factual basis, including where the record clearly supports the trial court’s discretionary discovery rulings.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a default entered after defendants repeatedly obstructed discovery and disobeyed an order compelling proper responses, and it sanctioned both clients and counsel for pursuing a meritless appeal from the terminating sanction.


Collisson & Kaplan v. Hartunian, 21 Cal. App. 4th 1611 (Ct. App. 1994)