Opinion ID: 2974272
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Prior Warnings

Text: As discussed above, John Anson was repeatedly warned that failure to cooperate could lead to entry of default judgment. The district court made it abundantly clear that it specifically considered John Anson’s behavior to be grounds for dismissal as early as the December 17, 2003 hearing, telling John Anson and his counsel that they were getting the “last bite in the apple” and dismissing Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice and warning that Plaintiff would be allowed to renew the motion if the behavior did not change. Even prior to that hearing, however, the magistrate judge had indicated that Defendants had delayed long enough in complying with discovery requests. The record is rife with instances in which the court below warned John Anson that his continued 15 No. 05-5300 engagement in obstructionist behavior could resort in entry of a judgment against him and the other Anson Defendants, but John Anson not only continued his pattern of behavior, but escalated into blatantly misleading the court on the matter of the arbitration documents. As a result, we believe that John Anson was on notice about the consequences of his behavior, and that the third Regional Refuse factor is met.