You are correct that in a criminal case Alex's obstruction of the discovery process would have had different outcomes. In a criminal case, the prosecution does

You are correct that in a criminal case Alex's obstruction of the discovery process would have had different outcomes. In a criminal case, the prosecution does not typically rely on a defendant's cooperation with a discovery process. Instead, the state obtains a warrant to search the defendant's property and gather the evidence required to build their case. If this were a criminal trial, the police would have shown up at Alex's house and place of work. If Alex refused to let the police search his property, they would have used whatever physical force was necessary to remove Alex and execute a lawful search of his property. Then a trial would have happened using any lawfully discovered evidence. Jones cannot ignore a warrant; guns and battering rams and overwhelming force will compel him to comply. This sequence of events is not possible in civil cases, because civil courts do not typically use force to compel discovery. Instead, they have only the threat of a default judgement to compel discovery. The state has less power to compel discovery, so in cases of obstruction the recourse to the aggrieved party is different. The common denominator is that proper trial cannot happen if one party can arbitrarily withhold key evidence from the other party. You CANNOT simply refuse to let the police execute a lawful warrant and expect to proceed with a normal trial. The state will execute the warrant. Similarly, you CANNOT simply refuse to share evidence with the plaintiff and expect to proceed with a normal trial. The state will not bring a battering ram to your home, but it will find you guilty by default. This wasn't a show trial, and Alex wasn't "refused" a trial. He had a right to a trial to determine innocence or guilt. He chose to give up that right by repeatedly and willfully refusing the comply with discovery requests.