In Projects Management Co. v. DynCorp International LLC, 734 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2013) (No. 12-2241), plaintiff PMC and defendant DynCorp entered into a contract to assist the U.S. State Department in the development of a civilian police force in Iraq. After DynCorp terminated the contract for performance issues, PMC sued to recover certain contractual amounts. PMC waited until after the close of discovery to produce its damages calculation as well as several relevant documents – documents which contradicted PMC’s earlier interrogatory responses and the prior testimony of PMC’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness. DynCorp filed a motion requesting that the case be dismissed as a sanction; the court declined to do so and instead ordered that the factual substance of the belatedly-produced documents be deemed admitted, and that PMC re-produce Rule 30(b)(6) designees for additional depositions. After PMC’s supplemental deposition witnesses gave evasive and nonresponsive answers, and after PMC continued to produce additional relevant documents that had previously been withheld, the court reconsidered its sanctions ruling and ordered PMC’s claims dismissed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court acted well within its inherent authority to impose sanctions, up to and including the dismissal of a case. The court rejected PMC’s argument that the court had based its sanctions ruling on misconduct not raised by DynCorp in its motion for sanctions, concluding that a district court exercising its inherent sanctions authority may do so sua sponte, and in doing so, must consider the whole of the case in choosing the appropriate sanction.