some less severe, non-terminating sanction, as courts routinely do when confronted with discovery violations. These factors signal that the court viewed the Rule G(6) deficiency as something more substantial than a discovery violation. Indeed, if the district court had concluded that striking Pickle’s claim was warranted as a discovery sanction, without giving Pickle an opportunity to cure or reasoning why such opportunity would be futile, we would conclude that decision was an abuse of discretion. See Rule G(8) advisory committee’s note (“[T]he court should strike a claim or answer [under Rule 8(e)(i)(A) ] only if satisfied that an opportunity should not be afforded to cure the defects....”); see also United States v. $154,853.00 in U.S. Currency, 744 F.3d 559, 564 (8th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>); cf. Toth v. Trans World Airlines, 862 F.2d
holding that appellate court should overturn a district courts denial of a motion to amend a complaint only if the district court has abused its discretion holding that district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion to file fourth amended complaint holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint holding that the district court abused its discretion in striking a claim for sole reason that claimant failed adequately to respond to g6 special interrogatories