[Part 2 of 2] Respondent's request for terminating, or in the alternative evidence and issue, sanctions is denied as to this motion, on the present record. There is no outstanding discovery order as to the instant interrogatories. "[A]lthough the actions of [Petitioner] and his counsel may demonstrate a history of discovery abuses, without a disobeyed court order a terminating sanction [would be] improperly imposed." (Ruvalcaba v. Government Employees Ins. Co. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1579, 1583.) This litigation also lacks the specific stipulation language regarding terminating sanctions discussed in Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 262, or the "egregious" conduct (intentional spoliation) in R.S. Creative, Inc. v. Creative Cotton, Ltd. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 486, 497. There is no showing that a lesser sanction would be futile as to the instant discovery. (see Vallbona v. Springer (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1548 and Do It Urself Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Brow