that in the present case the dismissal was designated as “with prejudice.” Functionally, however, these two cases are equivalent. The dismissal in both cases was made because the plaintiffs had chosen a forum that, while proper, was “inconvenient.” As noted above, the limited nature of the f.n.c. ruling cannot serve to bar the plaintiffs’ claims forever from U.S. courts. V. Plaintiffs’ tactics in manipulating fora in this case are “repugnant,” as the district court properly observed, but they are permitted by the law that we must follow. Certainly, defendants contemplated that they would be subject only to a suit in the Philippines following the f.n.c. dismissal. The State of Louisiana is d 607, 608 (5th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1079, 113 S.Ct. 1046, 122 L.Ed.2d 355 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Truck Treads, Inc. v. Armstrong Rubber Co.,
holding that sanction of dismissal was warranted when plaintiff had failed to appear for deposition on multiple occasions and following plaintiffs failure to comply with orders of the court including an order that plaintiff make medical records available to the defendant holding that dismissal for failure to comply with discovery orders is on the merits holding that dismissal for failure to appear at a deposition is on the merits holding if a deposition is taken for discovery only  not for use at trial the deposition is not a stage of trial for which the defendant must be present holding that a dismissal on limitations grounds is a judgment on the merits