The record and case law demonstrate that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by entering a default against Marsch due to his numerous willful discovery violations, which included the deletion of relevant emails, the concealment of material witnesses, lying during depositions, providing false testimony before the trial court, and much more. See Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla. 1983) (finding that although “the striking of pleadings or entering a default for noncompliance with an order compelling discovery is the most severe of all sanctions which should be employed only in extreme circumstances[,] [a] deliberate and contumacious disregard of the court’s authority will justify application of this severest of sanctions, as will bad faith, willful disregard or gross indifference to an order of the court, or conduct which evinces deliberate callousness.” (citations omitted)); Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Martinsen, 736 So. 2d 794, 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (finding that a party who engages in serious misconduct forfeits the right to participate in the proceedings, including the right to defend against an opposing party’s claims). We reach the same conclusion regarding the trial court’s subsequent order precluding the appellants from presenting evidence or contesting Lennar’s evidence at the damages trial as a sanction for Marsch’s “staunch refusal” to follow the trial court’s orders after the defaults as to liability were entered against the appellants.