675 (11th Cir.2006), and the Court must be mindful of the dual role that sanctions play: an appropriate sanction must both punish the offending conduct and serve to deter future violations, Nat’l Hockey League v. Metro. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 643, 96 S.Ct. 2778, 49 L.Ed.2d 747 (1976) (per curiam) (“[T]he most severe in the spectrum of sanctions provided by statute or rule must be available to the district court ... not merely to penalize those whose conduct [warranted] such a sanction, but to deter those who might be tempted to such conduct....”). This is especially true when the disobedient party has acted willfully and failed to convince the Court that it used “all reasonable efforts” to comply with the order. See United States v. Hayes, 722 F.2d 723, 725 (11th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Finally, “the obedience of judicial orders is
holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion holding that the standard of review for an award of statutory damages is even more deferential than an abuse of discretion standard holding that lower courts application of a some effort standard was an abuse of discretion holding that the standard of review under rule 60 is abuse of discretion holding that a district courts application of the wrong legal standard on a motion to withdraw a plea constitutes an abuse of discretion