In Benware v. Means, 99-1410 (La. 1/19/00) 752 So. 2d 841, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently concluded that there was no error in a trial court's exclusion of all witnesses, exhibits, and defenses by a defendant who had repeatedly failed to comply with pre-trial orders. At trial, the defendant could only cross-examine witnesses presented by the plaintiff and ultimately, judgment was entered against him. Reasoning that the "drastic" remedy relied on by the trial court was appropriate given the circumstances, the supreme court set forth several factors for crafting penalties for failure to follow a pretrial order, stating: Other important considerations in determining the appropriateness of the penalty for a pre-trial order violation, in addition to the question of whether the client participated in the violation, are the stage of the proceeding at which the violation occurred, the presence or absence of prejudice to the opposing party's preparation of the case, and the nature and persistency of the misconduct that constitutes the violation. Id. at p. 6; 752 So. 2d 841, 847. The supreme court further explained that "each case must be decided upon its own facts and circumstances, and the trial judge is vested with much discretion in determining the penalty for violation of pre-trial and discovery orders." Id. at p. 5; 752 So. 2d 84, 847.