defendant’s counsel that the documents would be available at his office for review— clearly not what Magistrate Judge Waxse instructed. Defendant’s counsel then requested that plaintiffs counsel have the documents copied and sent to defendant, at defendant’s expense. As of July 27, 2004, the date this Motion to Dismiss was fully briefed, and more than two months after discovery was to have closed, defendant had not received the documents. As such, the court determines that a lesser sanction would not be effective in procuring plaintiffs constructive participation in the case. IV. Conclusion Upon consideration of the factors set forth in Gripe, the court concludes that dismissal of this action is warranted. See Dochterman v. Res. Realizations, 56 Fed.Appx. 455, 459-60 (10th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Willner v. Univ. of Kan., 848 F.2d 1023, 1030
holding that sanction of dismissal was warranted when plaintiff had failed to appear for deposition on multiple occasions and following plaintiffs failure to comply with orders of the court including an order that plaintiff make medical records available to the defendant holding that dismissal for failure to appear at a deposition is on the merits holding dismissal for failure to comply with rule 8 was dismissal of entire action which was appealable final order holding that plaintiffs failure to respond to argument warranted dismissal with prejudice holding that dismissal for failure to comply with discovery orders is on the merits