includes a complete failure to engage in discovery and failure to appear at depositions and hearings set by the court. Most significantly, Hales and Comstar failed to engage counsel admitted to practice before the district court for a period of twenty-five months, from the inception of the lawsuit until the very day before the hearing at which they were required to show cause why default should not be entered against them. This conduct provides ample basis for a grant of default judgment. See, e.g., Ackra, 86 F.3d at 857 (finding that defendant’s failure to obtain substitute counsel, respond to discovery, and comply with orders of the court provided ample basis for district court’s grant of default judgment for $1.2 million); Comiskey v. JFTJ Corp., 989 F.2d 1007, 1009 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Hales and Comstar rely primarily on Seventh"
holding that dismissal for failure to comply with discovery orders is on the merits holding default was the appropriate remedy for failure to comply with numerous court orders and discovery requests holding that not only must discovery requests be reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to case but discovery requests may not be used as fishing expedition or to impose unreasonable discovery expenses on opposing party holding that with respect to discovery abuses prejudice from unreasonable delay is presumed  and failure to comply with court orders mandating discovery is sufficient prejudice holding that party must comply with notice and cure provisions before seeking remedy for default under contract