Court Opinion

ID: 9821453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 08:07:59.809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:51.699235
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, J.,
Specially Concurring.
Although this Court must remand for factual findings consistent with Kozel v. Ostendoyf, 629 So.2d 817 (Fla.1993), it is apparent that discovery violations occurred in this case. And although it is correct that this court reversed an order imposing *1272a sanction of dismissal for discovery violations in GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Whiddon, 164 So.3d 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), that ease is readily distinguishable from the discovery violations documented here. In GMAC, the party at fault improvidently filed a foreclosure action and demonstrated an inability to follow rules of procedure. Here, the trial court correctly recognized that some of the discovery violations were egregious.
But we do not decide here whether the trial court will and could enter an order that would comply with Kozel, and we cannot speculate whether the trial court will again find dismissal the appropriate sanction. Nevertheless, we cannot and do not countenance actions in which litigants disregard discovery deadlines, file meaningless objections, insert boilerplate responses, and file repeated motions for additional time to respond, only to provide insufficient information or documents. When legal decisions are unduly delayed because one party refuses to perform their legal obligations to comply with discovery rules, it is entirely appropriate for a trial court to carefully consider sanctions when raised by the non-offending party. It is critical to remember that discovery abuses are not merely private matters between private litigants, but are public abuses that violate citizens’ proper expectation that the judiciary will ensure that cases are timely resolved.
Civil cases lingering in courts for years without final resolution because of lengthy discovery disputes should not be tolerated in courts of law. All involved, judges and litigants, have a solemn responsibility to ensure that inexcusable delays in civil legal proceedings do not occur, and where such are documented, that the delays are appropriately punished. I commend the trial court for its efforts here, but I concur, as I must, for further proceedings in accordance with Kozel.