refuse to allow the party to support designated claims or defenses, strike out pleadings, or dismiss the action. See id. Therefore, based upon the text of RCFC 37, especially the focus of its remedies, it does not appear to the court to be an appropriate source of authority upon which to base any sanction or remedy in this case. 3 . The RCFC are modeled after the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and, except for "a limited number of changes ... deemed necessary to accommodate procedural requirements particular to this court[,] ... [the text of RCFC 16] fully conforms to the text of FRCP 16.” RCFC 16 Rules Committee Note (2000). For this reason, the RCFC and the FRCP are often treated as being analogous. See Principal Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 70 Fed.Cl. 144, 157 (2006) (<HOLDING>). 4 . This fact pattern is clearly analogous to
holding that frcp 16 is virtually identical to rcfc 16 in the case of waiver for failure to file a pretrial motion and therefore applying standards developed under the federal rules holding that sanctions including striking plaintiffs pleadings entering judgment for defendant and dismissing plaintiffs counterclaim were proper under the federal rules of civil procedure and local rules where plaintiff failed to file its final pretrial  statement by specified date as required by court scheduling order failed to file a motion requesting an extension of time to prepare and file final pretrial statement and where counsel failed to appear at the final pretrial conference holding that the burden is upon the state under the applicable federal rules of evidence holding that a failure to file an appeal is within the scope of the waiver because the failure does not undermine the validity of the plea or waiver recognizing privilege under federal rules