In Manzetti v. Superior Court (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 373, the defendants served a demand for entry to inspect on the plaintiffs. The plaintiff refused to permit the inspection, and the defendant successfully moved to compel compliance; monetary sanctions were also awarded. (Id. at pp. 376-377.) The plaintiff continued to refuse to comply, and the defendant moved for terminating sanctions. (Id. at p. 377.) At the same time, the plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandate, which was summarily denied. (Ibid.) The trial court denied the motion for terminating sanctions, but instead entered a detailed order compelling the plaintiff's compliance with the inspection request. (Id. at p. 378 & fn. 7.) The plaintiff filed a second petition for a writ of mandate which was "substantially identical" to the first petition. ( Id. at p. 378.) After issuing an order to show cause re sanctions, the appellate court awarded sanctions against the plaintiff for filing a frivolous petition. (Id. at pp. 378, 379, 381-382.) Although the appellate court noted that the plaintiff had "engaged in a pattern of unwarranted procedural maneuvers to delay and prevent the defendant from exercising a legitimate discovery right, speciously contending that they could not discern the scope of the requested inspection" (id. at pp. 378-379), and acknowledged that it had "necessarily reviewed and considered the entire record of this discovery dispute from the original demand for inspection to the filing of the second petition" (id. at p. 379), the court did so in order "to determine the merits of the second and pending petition and the motivation for filing it" (ibid.). The appellate court did not hold it would be proper to impose sanctions based on the discovery abuses in the trial court.