we conclude that we need not remand for reconsideration. Plaintiffs do not challenge the finding that the court described as the “primary” and “controlling” factor in its decision — that plaintiffs had willfully disobeyed the order compelling production. Given that the court deemed that factor to be controlling, even if the challenged finding is not supported by any evidence, the outcome on remand would be no different. Affirmed. 1 Plaintiffs separately argue that the trial court erred in dismissing Ota’s claims, asserting that the court did not consider lesser sanctions. However, plaintiffs do not call our attention to anything in the record showing that they preserved that issue before the trial court. See SAIF v. Harris, 161 Or App 1, 11, 983 P2d 1066, rev den, 329 Or 527 (1999) (<HOLDING>). Raising the issue with respect to the other
holding that a defendant who fails to raise a specific issue as the basis for suppression in a motion to suppress to the district court has waived the right to raise that issue on appeal holding that constitutional claim that paternity suit should not be barred by statute of limitations is waived by failing to raise the issue before the trial court holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review holding that defendant failed to raise a constitutional issue at trial and thus waived appellate review of that issue holding that by fading to timely raise the issue before the trial court the defendant had waived the right to raise the issue on appeal that the trial court failed to consider less severe sanctions