Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 37(B)(2)

70 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• D'Clute v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-11-20
  The court recommended granting in part and denying in part the defendant's motion for sanctions, imposing monetary sanctions for non-compliance with a discovery order but denying sanctions that would prejudice the plaintiff's case.
• Clark v. Target Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-21
  The court held that while dismissal was too severe a sanction for the plaintiff's failures, monetary sanctions were warranted for missing mediation, and a new compulsory medical examination and mediation must be scheduled.
• Onemata Corp. v. Rahman
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-28
  The court recommended granting the motion to dismiss the supplemental complaint with leave to amend because it failed to sufficiently plead fraudulent transfer claims and constituted a shotgun pleading.
• Keefe v. Britt's Bow Wow Boutique, Inc
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-08-22
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motion for discovery sanctions, awarding attorney's fees and costs against the plaintiff and her counsel for failure to timely provide verified interrogatory responses.
• Dover Shores Shell, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-06-14
  The court denied plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's expert witnesses and motion for reconsideration or continuance, finding no basis for sanctions or modification of the schedule.
• Crowder v. Williams
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-01-06
  Plaintiff's response to the Order to Show Cause was insufficient, and monetary sanctions are appropriate for his failure to attend court-ordered examinations.
• Sweet Additions Ingredient Processors, LLC v. Meelunie Am., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-11-29
  The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' discovery motions, allowing limited further depositions and ordering specific productions, while denying Rule 37(b)(2) sanctions but awarding Rule 37(a) expenses to Sweet Additions due to Meelunie's discovery production is
• Willard v. UFP Auburndale, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-10-06
  The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant sanctions and dismiss the action without prejudice, overruling the defendant's objection seeking dismissal with prejudice.
• Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc. v. Slattery, Sobel & Decamp, LLP
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-09-16
  The court held that the Pandora Defendants' objections to the magistrate judge's report were overruled, and their motion for sanctions was denied, while plaintiffs' motion for fees was granted in part.
• Emp'rs Ins. Co. of Wassau v. Redlands Christian Migrant Ass'n, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-06-04
  The court held that dismissal with prejudice and default judgment were excessive sanctions for the plaintiff's non-compliance, given the circumstances involving the former attorney's difficulties and corporate reorganization.
• Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc. v. Slattery, Sobel & Decamp, LLP
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-10-02
  The court held that Plaintiffs violated the attorney-client privilege, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B), and the parties' confidentiality agreement by using inadvertently disclosed privileged documents, and thus their motions were stricken and they were ordered to pay
• Li v. Walsh
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-09-14
  The court recommended that the defendant's pleadings be stricken and a default be entered against him due to his willful, bad faith, and dilatory conduct in failing to comply with court orders and discovery obligations.
• Velez v. Bank of Am., NA
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-10-04
  The court denied the request for sanctions (dismissal) but granted the motion to compel further discovery, ordering plaintiffs to provide amended responses and awarding defendant attorney's fees for the motion.
• United States v. One 1999 Forty Seven Foot Fountain Motor Vessel
  196 F.R.D. 345· S.D. Fla.· 2007-02-21
  The court held that Lipoban's repeated failure to comply with discovery orders and its intentional frustration of the discovery process warranted striking its claim and answer.
• Jones v. Thompson
  996 F.2d 261· 10th Cir.· 1993-06-22
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the plaintiffs' case with prejudice as a sanction for repeated noncompliance with court orders and failure to prosecute.
• Daval Steel Prods. v. M/V Fakredine (Ex Diana
  951 F.2d 1357· 2d Cir.· 1991-12-03
  The court held that sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2) require a prior court order, and affirmed sanctions against Ekco for violating such an order, but reversed sanctions against Ekinciler for which no such order existed.
• Steffan v. Cheney
  920 F.2d 74· D.C. Cir.· 1990-12-07
  The court held that the district court erred in ordering discovery of homosexual conduct, as the Navy's discharge was based solely on Steffan's admission of homosexuality, not on any alleged conduct.
• Boron v. W. Tex. Exports, Inc.
  680 F. Supp. 1532· S.D. Fla.· 1988-03-08
  The court held that West Texas had sufficient minimum contacts with Florida to establish personal jurisdiction, and that its motion to vacate default should be denied due to bad faith and discovery violations. Motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction were granted for