Law Clerk
In Rachkov v. Medvednik (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 8, 2026), the Second District Court of Appeal addressed an important discovery sanctions issue: what happens when a party challenges an order striking pleadings but failed to preserve the argument below and failed to provide a transcript on appeal. The answer was straightforward. The order was affirmed.
The case arose from a fraud and breach of contract action brought by Olga and Ellariy Medvednik against Igor Rachkov and Best Future Homes, Inc. The Medvedniks alleged that they paid more than $100,000 for the construction of two single-family homes, but no construction work was performed and the payments were not reimbursed.
During discovery, Rachkov, individually and as the corporate representative of Best Future Homes, failed to appear for scheduled depositions, thereby violating discovery orders. The Medvedniks then moved for sanctions and for entry of summary judgment. After a hearing, the trial court struck the defendants’ pleadings and entered final summary judgment in favor of the Medvedniks.
On appeal, Rachkov and Best Future Homes argued that the trial court erred by striking their pleadings without making the required written findings. But the Second DCA held that the argument was not preserved because the defendants did not file a motion for rehearing, reconsideration, or clarification asking the trial court to include the missing analysis in the order.
That preservation problem was made worse by the lack of a transcript from the sanctions hearing. Without a transcript, the appellate court could not determine what arguments were made below, and its review was limited to fundamental error on the face of the order.
The court also noted that the required findings are generally aimed at situations where the attorney is responsible, in whole or in part, for the failure to comply with court orders. Here, the face of the order showed that the trial court found fault with Rachkov himself, not his attorney. For that reason, the Second DCA found no error on the face of the order.
Practice pointers
If you are challenging a sanctions order, preserve the issue immediately. A targeted motion for rehearing or clarification can be critical if the order does not contain the findings needed for appellate review.
If the hearing matters, have a court reporter. Without a transcript, the appellate court may be limited to the face of the order, which can make reversal much harder.
Rachkov is a reminder that appellate issues are often won or lost before the appeal begins. Even when a sanction is severe, the appellate court may affirm if the issue was not preserved and the record is incomplete. In discovery sanctions practice, good litigators must not only argue the merits, they must preserve the issue, make a record, and ensure the order says what it needs to say.
* * * * * * * * * *
THIS BLOG IS INTENDED FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE. THE READER SHOULD CONSULT WITH KNOWLEDGEABLE LEGAL COUNSEL TO DETERMINE HOW APPLICABLE LAWS APPLY TO SPECIFIC FACTS AND SITUATIONS. BLOG POSTS ARE BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION AT THE TIME THEY ARE WRITTEN. SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE LAWS OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE PUBLICATION, PLEASE CALL US TO DISCUSS ANY ACTION YOU MAY BE CONSIDERING AS A RESULT OF READING THIS BLOG.