of the rules of procedure, the court must, in effect, fit the punishment to the crime. “Although the trial court’s discretion to choose an appropriate sanction is broad, when a court imposes a ‘drastic’ sanction such as dismissal or default we will closely scrutinize the court’s decision.” Saucier v. State Tax Assessor, 1998 ME 61, ¶ 6, 708 A.2d 281, 288. [¶ 17] In determining the appropriate sanction to be imposed upon a party for failure to comply with the rules, the court should take into account the purpose of the specific rule at issue, the party’s conduct throughout the proceedings, the party’s bonafides in its failure to comply, prejudice to other parties, and the need for the orderly administration of justice. See, e.g., Estate of Dineen, 1998 ME 268, ¶ 11, 721 A.2d 185, 188 (<HOLDING>); Ricci v. Delehanty, 1998 ME 281, ¶ 15, 719
holding sanctions were appropriate due to prejudice imposed on other party from failure to disclose subject matter of expert testimony holding sanctions were appropriate when excessive responsive pleadings were filed for purposes of delay holding sanctions were appropriate where party filed motions merely for purposes of delay holding that although the defendant filed a number of motions because the original trial date never changed as a result of those motions no delay could be attributed to the motions holding sanctions order not final where the amount of sanctions had not yet been determined