& Son, Inc. v. Outboard Marine Corp., 611 F.2d 32, 35 (3d Cir. 1979) (“Rule 37 sanctions are contemplated when there has been virtually total noncompliance with discovery.”), abrogated on other grounds by Alexander v. Gino’s, Inc., 621 F.2d 71, 73 (3d Cir. 1980); see also Southard v. Pa. R.R. Co., 24 F.R.D. 456, 457 (E.D. Pa. 1959) (“Even if the defendant had filed false answers, it is extremely doubtful that such filing should be considered tantamount to a refusal to answer.”). Other courts have imposed sanctions where parties have responded but “the evasive or incomplete answers are tantamount to no answer at all.” Airtex Corp. v. Shelley Radiant Ceiling Co., 536 F.2d 145, 155 (7th Cir. 1976); see also Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Eco Chem, Inc., 757 F.2d 1256, 1260-61 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (<HOLDING>); Fautek v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 96 F.R.D.
holding that failure to respond in accord with  2605e2a b or c is a single respa violation because the statute provides a servicer with disjunctive response options not that a servicer has unfettered discretion in how to respond holding that a pro se party must be advised of consequences of failing to respond to a dispositive motion including an explanation that the failure to respond  may result in the district court granting the motion and dismissing the case holding that plaintiffs failure to respond to argument warranted dismissal with prejudice holding that the district court must find a total failure to respond to the discovery requested holding that unable to respond constitutes no response