conference. • Jahnke did not file his witness list. • Jahnke did not file an itemization of damages in connection with his counterclaim. • Jahnke did not file his pretrial report. • Jahnke did not attend the pretrial conference. In light of this and the need of the circuit courts to be able to control their calendars to ensure "the orderly administration of justice," Trispel, 89 Wis. 2d at 731, 279 N.W.2d at 245, we cannot say that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it determined that Jahnke's failure to do the things he was required to do was "egregious," see Sentry Ins. v. Davis, 2001 WI App 203, ¶ 21 & n.8, 247 Wis. 2d 501, 516-517, 517 n.8, 634 N.W.2d 553, 561-562, 561 n.8 (something may be "egregious" conduct without having been done in bad faith) (<HOLDING>). Stated another way, Jahnke's noncompliance
holding that consulting a dictionary definition for the meaning of malice constituted the consideration of extrinsic information finding prejudice under the chapman harmless error standard and affirming the district courts grant of conditional habeas relief holding that the defendant was not prejudiced by the jurys exposure to the dictionary definition of burglary because the definition referenced theft which was not an element the prosecution was required to prove holding that the definition of operating deficits is not ambiguous despite the absence of a definition of the phrase in the contract holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a new trial where the jury had taken a dictionary that had not been admitted into evidence into the jury room and had improperly referred to and relied on the dictionarys definition of legal cause that was at variance with the definition of proximate cause recognizing the dictionary definition of  egregious  as  extraordinary in some bad way glaring flagrant