on all the circumstances that were brought to its attention, including the earlier delays.”); Cine Forty-Second, St. Theatre, 602 F.2d at 1068 (“[Sanctions must be weighed in light of the full record in the case”) (citing Nat'l Hockey League, v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642 (1976)); Al Barnett & Son, 611 F.2d at 36 (“The full record reveals a course of conduct that frustrates the fundamental purpose underlying the discovery rules to provide adequate information to litigants in civil trials.”). Here, even if Fleming’s failure to appear for his deposition on September 25 may not warrant sanctions, his failure falls within a pattern of noncooperation and noncompliance with Rule 37(d). Cf. First Nat'l Bank of Wa. v. Langley-Howard, Inc., 391 F.2d 207, 208 (3d Cir. 1968) (<HOLDING>). Thus, his failure to appear for his own
holding that a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment precluded default judgment holding district court abused its discretion by entering default judgment where attorney caused delay and sanctions short of default such as costs attorneys fees or contempt of court would have likely cured the attorneys failure to respond holding that trial court must make entry of default prior to entry of default judgment and court may not make entry of default when there is no default in law or in fact 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 delayed appearance for deposition does not warrant default judgment but warrants sanctions in the form of costs