Texarkana Behavioral Assoc. v. Universal Health Services, Inc, No. 10-3654 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil Case - diversity. District court's grant of summary judgment to Universal Health Services, Inc. is summarily affirmed. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to compel discovery.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-3654 ___________ Texarkana Behavioral Associates, L.C., * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Universal Health Services, Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: September 22, 2011 Filed: October 6, 2011 ___________ Before MELLOY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. In this diversity-based action, Texarkana Behavioral Associates, L.C. (TBA) appeals from the district court's1 adverse grant of summary judgment on its claims under Arkansas law against Universal Health Services, Inc. for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and tortious interference with a contractual relationship. TBA also appeals the district court's denial of TBA's motion to compel discovery. After de novo review of the summary judgment decision, Mayer v. Countrywide Home Loans, 647 F.3d 789, 791 (8th Cir. 2011), we affirm for the 1 The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. reasons discussed in the district court's order, Texarkana Behavioral Associates, L.C. v. Universal Health Services, Inc., 748 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (W.D. Ark. 2010). See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Additionally, for the reasons discussed in the district court's order, see id., we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying TBA's motion to compel discovery. See Kilpatrick v. King, 499 F.3d 759, 766 (8th Cir. 2007) ("We review the denial of a motion to compel discovery for gross abuse of discretion."). ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
