Case ID: f-appx_432/html/0639-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TEXARKANA BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES, L.C., Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Appellee.
    No. 10-3654.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 22, 2011.
    Filed: Oct. 6, 2011.
    Craig L. Henry, Henry Law Firm, Michael D. Peek, Condit & Peek, Texarkana, TX, Judy Simmons Henry, Gary D. Marts, Jr., Wright & Lindsey, Little Rock, AR, for Appellant.
    Daniel L. Herrington, Harold Wayne Young, Jr., Friday & Eldredge, Little Rock, AR, for Appellee.
    Before MELLOY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    [UNPUBLISHED]
   PER CURIAM.

In this diversity-based action, Texarkana Behavioral Associates, L.C. (TBA) appeals from the district court’s 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 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.”). 
      
      . The Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.