Opinion ID: 596121
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prejudice to the Plaintiffs

Text: 40 We reach a similar result with respect to the prejudice to the plaintiffs. Although the district court's discussion of the prejudice factor is not extensive, its conclusion is amply supported by the record. Plaintiffs were required to expend significant time and costs in attempting to secure responses to their discovery requests, responses which were never adequately made. As a result, plaintiffs were forced to prepare their pretrial memorandum without the information about Blinder, Robinson's markup practices which was necessary to prove plaintiffs' case at trial. Finally, plaintiffs failed to receive the defendants' pretrial memorandum, further prejudicing their ability to prepare an effective trial strategy. 41 In Poulis, we found prejudice to the non-defaulting party where [t]he interrogatories were never answered nor were objections filed; defense counsel was obliged to file a motion to compel answers, and was obliged to file its pretrial statement without the opportunity to review plaintiffs' pretrial statement which was due to be filed first. 747 F.2d at 868; see also Bedwell, 843 F.2d at 694 (upholding district court's finding of prejudice where although the defendants vigorously pursued the available discovery methods to avoid being prejudiced, they were deprived of important information because plaintiff delayed compliance with discovery orders). The record in this case demonstrates similar prejudice. In addition, the prejudice flowing from failure to proceed with a scheduled trial after the case had been pending for more than three years is apparent.