MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Valerie M. Stevens and Famesha Okoeka ("Plaintiffs") filed this action in state court on April 6, 2015, against Defendants U.S. Bank National Association ("U.S. Bank") and USAA Federal Savings Bank ("USAA") (collectively, the "Defendants"). (ECF No. 7). After removal to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland and resolution of some initial procedural matters, a scheduling order was entered. (ECF No. 32). Shortly thereafter, counsel for Plaintiffs moved to withdraw at their request (ECF No. 34), and Plaintiffs were notified that they were proceeding without counsel (ECF No. 35). The deadlines in the scheduling order were extended for 60 days at their request, and the discovery period expired on September 11, 2016. (ECF No. 37).

On June 14, 2016, Defendant USAA filed a motion to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production of documents as to both Plaintiffs, reciting that neither Plaintiff had responded to the discovery requests or to attempts to confer. (ECF No. 38). Neither Plaintiff filed a response to the motion and, on July 6, it was granted. (ECF No. 39). Plaintiffs were ordered to provide full responses no later than July 22, and they were forewarned that failure to provide discovery could result in dismissal of their complaint and an order to pay Defendant's expenses. (Id.). On August 16, Defendant USAA moved for discovery sanctions, reciting that Plaintiffs still had not responded to the discovery requests, and additionally had failed to appear for properly noticed depositions. (ECF No. 41). Defendant U.S. Bank filed a similar motion on August 29 (ECF No. 42), and the scheduling order was stayed pending resolution of these motions (ECF No. 44). Defendants have certified that they have, in good faith, conferred or attempted to confer with Plaintiffs in an effort to resolve these issues without court action. (ECF Nos. 41, at 13; 42-1 ¶ 4). Plaintiffs' responses in opposition were due by September 2 and September 15, but again, Plaintiffs have not responded to either motion.

As Defendants note, it appears that Plaintiffs have abandoned this litigation. Plaintiffs have provided no response to Defendant USAA's discovery requests, and accordingly did not comply with the court's order granting Defendant USAA's motion to compel.1 (ECF No. 41 ¶ 15). They have failed to appear at or reschedule their depositions. (ECF Nos. 41 ¶¶ 16-17, 22-24; 41-6; 42, at 4-5; 42-1 ¶¶ 8, 10). Obviously, this case cannot proceed if Plaintiffs do not participate in discovery. Where a party fails to obey an order to provide discovery or fails to appear for her own deposition, the sanctions available include orders "dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or in part," in addition to which, "the court must order the disobedient party . . . to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, caused by the failure, unless the failure was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust." Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v), (C); id. 37(d)(3); see also Hathcock v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 53 F.3d 36, 40 (4th Cir. 1995). The drastic sanction of dismissal may not be imposed except in the most compelling circumstances, and is guided by the application of a four factor test:

Mut. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Richards & Assocs., Inc., 872 F.2d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989).

Despite the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court order, and repeated warnings that they could be subject to sanctions, including dismissal (see ECF Nos. 39; 44), Plaintiffs have not participated in the discovery process. Discovery has now closed, and it appears that Plaintiffs do not intend to pursue this litigation. A complete failure to participate in discovery prejudices the other party to an extreme degree, and such noncompliance must be deterred. Accordingly, it is this 31st day of October, 2016, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, ORDERED that: