*1 THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Onemata Corporation (“Onemata” or “Plaintiff”)’s Renewed Motion for Sanctions against Defendant/Judgment Debtors Ashfaq Rahman and Sabira Arefin for Failure to Comply with Discovery Order [DE 647]; the August 28, 2024 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Alicia O. Valle, recommending that the Motion be granted in part [DE 713]; Defendant Ashfaq Rahman (“Raham)’s Objection to Report and Recommendation [DE 716]; Defendant Sabira Arefin (“Arefin”)’s Joinder with Rahman's Objection [DE 717]; Onemata's Response [DE 719]; Rahman's Reply [DE 725]; and Arefin's Joinder with Rahman's Reply [DE 726]. The Court has carefully considered these filings, the entire docket, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.

A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App'x at 784 (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App'x at 783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App'x at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and Rahman's Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [DE 716]. Having carefully considered Rahman's Objection, the Court overrules the Objection. Magistrate Valle evaluated the credibility of the Judgment Debtors through their own testimony and reviewed and considered extensive briefings regarding the issues of the Judgment Debtors’ refusal to produce documents. The Court finds that Judge Valle's analysis and determination that the Judgment Debtors should be prohibited from using or testifying about any documents that the Judgment Debtors have not provided to Onemata in discovery is strongly supported by the extensive record in this case.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 18th day of September, 2024.