of certain extraordinary circumstances, (2) the presence of willfulness, bad faith, or fault by the offending party, (3) the efficacy of lesser sanctions, [and] (4) the relationship or nexus between the misconduct drawing the [default] sanction and the matters in controversy in the case.” Halaco Eng’g Co. v. Costle, 843 F.2d 376, 380 (9th Cir.1988). In addition, the court may consider the prejudice to the moving party as an “optional” consideration where appropriate. Id. This multi-factor test is not “a me , 591 (9th Cir.1983) (upholding dismissal where the district court determined that “the deliberate deception and irreparable loss of material evidence justified the sanction of dismissal”); William T. Thompson Co. v. Gen’l Nutrition Corp., 593 F.Supp. 1443, 1456 (C.D.Cal.1984) (<HOLDING>). Given this requirement of extraordinary
holding reversal required where party lacked an opportunity to present evidence on the issue before sanctions imposed recognizing a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents including judicial records and documents holding that the constitutional right to present a defense is not violated by the exclusion of a defendants proffered evidence where he is otherwise given the opportunity to present his defense and crossexamine the key prosecution witnesses holding that default and dismissal were proper sanctions in view of partys willful destruction of documents and records that deprived the opposing party of the opportunity to present critical evidence on its key claims to the jury holding that the failure to investigate and present the confession of a third party deprived defendant of the most critical evidence supporting his best defense