Fire’s investigation and actions following an incident involving plaintiff Kevin Eddie McCrea— based on Kidde Fire’s, not counsel’s, serious and intentional discovery violations relating to the e-mails. As there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the discovery violations were intentional and because the sanction imposed by the trial court was well within its discretion, we find no departure from the essential requirements of law. See Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So.2d 492, 495 (Fla. 2004) (“It is well settled that determining sanctions for discovery violations is committed to the discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed ... absent an abuse of the sound exercise of that discretion.”); Toll v. Korge, 127 So.3d 883, 886-87 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (<HOLDING>). We, therefore, deny Kidde Fire’s petition for
holding that trial courts determination of facts has a presumption of correctness but trial courts legal conclusions are subject to de novo review holding appellate courts must consider the trial courts jury charge as a whole holding that the supreme courts proper scope of review of a trial courts decision in a trial de novo of an assessment matter is whether the decision of the trial court was clearly erroneous holding that where both the appellate and trial courts are reviewing the paper record  there is no reason for the appellate courts to defer to the trial courts finding holding that a trial courts determination of sanctions is committed to the trial courts dis cretion