Law Clerk
In Green v. Mann, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D1734 (Fla. 2025), the court upheld severe sanctions, including striking pleadings and entering default, against a plaintiff who repeatedly refused to comply with discovery requests and court orders.
Green initiated suit against Mann and JM & IC Investments, LLC, for a variety of tort claims: fraud, conversion, tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, declaratory relief, accounting, judicial dissolution, and appointment of receiver. Despite the plethora of allegations, when it came time for discovery, Green became evasive. After several attempts to depose to plaintiff and obtain responses to their request to produce, the defense counsel moved to compel.
The trial court granted the motion to compel and warned Green to comply. Green ignored the order, so the defense moved for civil contempt and sanctions. The court issued a second order to show cause and scheduled a sanctions hearing. The court, again, ordered Green to comply. Green continued to disobey court orders and failed to appear for her scheduled deposition. At this point, Green’s attorney withdrew from the case entirely, and Green attempted to shift the blame to the outgoing lawyer.
The trial court was not convinced. It found the misconduct was willful and direct, not merely the result of confusion or delegation. Further, the court noted Green’s continuous failure to comply with court orders, despite the withdraw of her former counsel. Utilizing the Kozel factors to reach its decision, the court struck the plaintiff’s pleadings, dismissed the complaint and entered a default judgment, a severe but legally supportable remedy under Florida law. It is important to note that the court justified extreme sanctions by the plaintiff’s intentional disregard for the court’s authority.
The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion. It emphasized that litigants must be personally responsible for complying with court orders, and cannot simply point to their lawyers as a shield. The Florida Supreme Court supports the lower court decisions, highlighting the peculiar behavior of the 10-count plaintiff.
This case emphasizes the need for compliance and diligence when prosecuting a case. Courts will not tolerate repeated avoidance of basic discovery requests. If you bring a case, expect to bring yourself with it.
At Boatman Ricci, we keep our clients on track with disciplined discovery compliance and proactive litigation management. Facing a motion to compel or worried about sanctions? Contact our team before it’s too late.
* * * * * * * * * *
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.