Workers’ compensation — Sanction — Judge of compensation claims erred in denying claimant’s motion for sanctions under section 440.32(3) based on allegation that employer/servicing agent’s attorney raised an improper and unfounded discovery objection in a motion for protective order — Under unambiguous language of statute, sanctions are both mandatory and not subject to any specific time limitation other than the pendency of ongoing litigation — Accordingly, plain language of statute does not support JCC’s ruling that motion for sanctions was either untimely or unwarranted because the E/SA’s motion for protective order was denied only in part — Administrative rule generally providing for imposition of sanctions for violation of rules or of any order of JCC goes beyond plain language of statute where sections of rule make imposition of sanctions discretionary and creates safe harbor period allowing sanctions to be avoided completely — Discussion of interplay between Rule 60Q-6.125 and section 440.32(3)