Identiseal Corp. (Identiseal) (plaintiff) entered into a franchising agreement with Positive Identification Systems, Inc. (PIS) (defendant) for the sale of its “Identiseal” product. Identiseal subsequently sued PIS for misrepresentation, alleging in its complaint that PIS represented that it was successful in promoting its products, but that in fact it was not. Identiseal’s attorney chose not to engage in discovery because he believed that his client’s chances of prevailing would be maximized if he developed his entire case at trial. In a final pretrial conference, the district court issued an order that the case be dismissed unless Identiseal conducted discovery. Pursuant to this order, the district court ultimately dismissed the complaint because Identiseal did not engage in discovery. Identiseal appealed on the grounds that the district court did not have the authority to order it to conduct discovery or suffer dismissal of the complaint.