and the relevant portions of the record, we conclude that the court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. The. court heard testimony from which it could have concluded that William and Chantal were involved indirectly in interviewing the jury foreman in clear violation of Local Rule 5.01(d). Moreover, after hearing testimony from William and Chantal that they were not involved make rules and issue orders is the power to enforce those rules and orders. See Magluta v. Samples, 162 F.3d 662, 664 (11th Cir.1998). And, where attorneys or parties obtain evidence in violation of the court’s rules or -orders, the court may exercise its power to enforce those rules and orders by excluding the evidence wrongfully obtained. See e.g., United States v. Gonzales, 164 F.3d 1285, 1291 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, when defendants engage in
holding that it was within the trial courts discretion to refuse any additional discovery and that the courts refusal to allow additional discovery was not an abuse of discretion recognizing that courts have discretion to exclude evidence as a sanction for violation of a discovery order holding that parole boards do not have to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony recognizing that the decision whether to sanction a party and if so the severity of such sanction is vested in the sound discretion of the trial court