What is the test for abuse of discovery of liability against Arnicar?

Reese next argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying an award of monetary sanctions against Arnicar for discovery abuse, or as the imposition of an equivalent, equitable adjustment of the liability determination. "Discovery sanctions are intended to remedy discovery abuse, not to punish the offending party. Accordingly, sanctions should be tailored to serve that remedial purpose, should not put the moving party in a better position than he would otherwise have been had he obtained the requested discovery, and should be proportionate to the offending party's misconduct." (Williams v. Russ (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1223.)

Rulings on discovery sanctions are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, resolving all evidentiary conflicts most favorably to the trial court's ruling. (Williams v. Russ, supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1224.) "We will reverse only if the trial court's order was arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical. It is appellant's burden to affirmatively demonstrate error and where the evidence is in conflict, we will affirm the trial court's findings. [Citation.] We presume the trial court's order was correct and indulge all presumptions and intendments in its favor on matters as to which it is silent." (Ibid.)