DCA 1980) (“[The rule providing for sanctions upon discovery violations] is not penal. It is not punitive. It is not aimed at punishing the litigant. The objective is compliance-compliance with the discovery Rules [sic].”); Garden-Aire Vill. Sea Haven, Inc. v. Decker, 433 So.2d 676, 677 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Further, the harshest sanction should be imposed only when there is evidence that the party deliberately and willfully refused to comply with the court’s order, not when the failure to comply is due to confusion or inability. Garden-Aire, 433 So.2d at 678 (noting that dismissal or default is rarely appropriate when the record does not reflect a willful refusal to comply with the court’s order). See also George A. Morris, M.D., P.A. v. Ergos, 532 So.2d 1360, 1361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the imposition of sanctions after
holding that not only must discovery requests be reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to case but discovery requests may not be used as fishing expedition or to impose unreasonable discovery expenses on opposing party holding that dismissal for discovery violations was an extreme remedy but warranted under the facts of the case holding that dismissal is not necessarily warranted even when a partys conduct in response to discovery requests is laggard and slothful holding that dismissal for failure to comply with discovery orders is on the merits holding sanctions were appropriate when a partys failure to turn over materials in response to a discovery request prejudiced the opponent