In Hillabrand v. Drypers Corp. (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 517, 520, fn. 1, 2000 Ohio 468, 721 N.E.2d 1029, the court held that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the plaintiff's case in a manner that did not comply with the local rules. The court also stated that "not only did the trial court prematurely grant appellee's motion for sanctions, it also failed to allow Hillabrand sufficient time to respond to appellee's initial motion to compel discovery, granting it the day after it was filed." Id. at 520, fn. 1. Hillabrand does not explicitly state that a trial court abuses its discretion by granting a motion to compel in such a circumstance. But we are mindful that "however hurried a court may be in its efforts to reach the merits of a controversy, the integrity of procedural rules is dependent upon consistent enforcement because the only fair and reasonable alternative thereto is complete abandonment." Miller v. Lint (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 209, 215, 404 N.E.2d 752. In Hillabrand, the trial court granted the defendant's motion to compel and stated that "failure to comply with this order will result in sanctions, which may include dismissal of the complaint." Hillabrand at 517. The trial court gave the plaintiff fourteen (14) days to comply with the order (February 18 to March 3). Id. When the plaintiff failed to comply, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Id. Two days later, the trial court dismissed the case with prejudice. Id.