Bonilla did not have the present ability to comply with the court’s discovery orders. A trial court should only impose discovery sanctions, especially the severe sanction, of dismissal, “when the non-complying party has the present ability to comply with the discovery orders.” Arviv v. Perlow, 528 So.2d 139, 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). It is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to impose the sanction of dismissal upon a party who does not have the present ability to comply with the court’s discovery orders. See Arviv, 528 So.2d at 140 (finding that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the plaintiffs case where the plaintiff had no present means with which to comply with the discovery order); Garcia Fleet Corp. v. Martinez, 483 So.2d 502, 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (<HOLDING>); Robinson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 417 So.2d 778,
holding that the district court abused its discretion by denying the habeas petitioners motion to conduct dna testing which was unavailable at trial holding that the trial court abused its discretion by entering a dismissal where the plaintiffs were at sea when the trial court granted its discovery order and were therefore unavailable to be renoticed for their depositions holding trial court abused its discretion when case had been on file for only three months the discovery sought was material to the plaintiffs claims and the plaintiff exercised due diligence in obtaining discovery holding that trial court was required to give full effect to supreme courts judgment and that by failing to do so the trial court abused its discretion holding that the issue was more appropriately framed as whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence at trial