Behstev Corporation v. E.I. Dupont

962 F.2d 13 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. BEHSTEV CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E.I. DUPONT, Defendant-Appellee. No. 91-15469. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 17, 1992. Decided May 8, 1992. Before SCHROEDER, LEAVY and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 The district court exercised its inherent power and dismissed Behstev's action. Behstev now appeals. We review the district court's sanction of dismissal for abuse of discretion, and we "will not reverse absent a definite and firm conviction that the district court made a clear error of judgment." Halaco Eng'g Co. v. Costle, 843 F.2d 376 , 379 (9th Cir.1988). We affirm. 3 * Behstev first argues that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to warn Behstev that the alleged discovery abuses would, if continued, result in dismissal. 4 We have previously held that a failure to warn can be a contributing factor in a decision to reverse an order…