FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MAY 19, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1496 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 21 59 2- CV-J LK MEDFIR ST CORPORATION, a D el aw ar e co rp or at ion , Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us COMM UNITY HEA LTH PLAN OF THE ROCKIES, INC., a Co lor ad o c or

por at ion , De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 19, 200 5) Be fo re BL A CK , H U L L and W IL SO N , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

MedFirst Corporation appeals the district court’ s grant of summ ary j udgm ent, which held Comm unityHe alth Plan of the Rockies, Inc. (CH PR) wa s en tit le d to te rm inate the part ie s’ m er ge r ag re em en t be ca use Me dF ir st f

ai le d to pr ovi de the Co lor ad o D ivi sio n of I nsur an ce ( D O I) w itha ll of the doc um en ts i t r e qu e s t e dt o e v a l u a t e an dap p r o v e th e me r g e r . We a f f i rm. I. BACKG ROUND Me dF ir st s ough t t o a cquir e CH PR a s aw hol ly

ow ne d su

bsi diary , and the parties entered into a Mer ger A greem ent on May 22, 2002. A t that tim e, CH PR ha d f al le n be lowCo lor ad o’ s m ini m um statut or y r equir em ents f

or c ap ita l and sur plu s, and f

ai lur e to m ee t those m ini m um r equir em en ts p ut C H PR

a t r isk of be ing pla ce d in to r ec ei ve rs hip by the state . T he pr opos ed

m er ge r re qui re d th e ap pr ova l of

the D O I, pr im ar ily

thr oughit s r ev ie wof

a“ Fo rm A ” ap pli catio n, w hic h in cl ude s ba ck gr ound inf orm at ionon the pr inc ipa ls i n th e tr an sa ct ion , explana tio n of

the te rm s of

the tr an sa ct ion , and e xpl an at ionof the f undi ng o f the tr an sa ct ion . T he D O I ap poi nte d B ri anS pano, apr ivate a tto rn ey w ho r ep re se nts the DO I in regulatory

m atters, as Supervisor of CH PR to assist with the review an d e va lu at io n o f th e p ro po se d m erg er. On June 10, 2002, MedFirst filed a Form A application with the DOI , pr op os in g t o fu ndth e tr an sa ct io n t hr ou gh a lo an fro m Med iq Fi na nc ia l, a3

California lender. T he Form A application in cluded an exhibi t of the “ Prelim inary Loan Com

m itm ent” with contingencies from MediqFinancial. T wo w eeks later, on June 24, 200 2, the D ep uty Co m m iss ion er of the D O I se nt a

le tte r to M ed Fi rs t stating it required additional inform ation and do cum entation, includin g all loan doc um en ta tio n and a gr ee m en ts b etw ee n M ed Fi rs t and M ed iqF inanc ia l. O n June 24, 200 2, Me dF ir st f ile d an am en de d F orm

A , pr ovi din g so m e of the inform ation requested bythe DO I, but no t the loan docum entation between MedFirst and MediqFinancial. In the am ended Form A, MedFirst stated it w as negotiatin g the docum entation for the MediqFinancial loan and would s end that inform ation to th e D OI when com pleted. S ubsequ ent conversations betwee n Sp an o and M ed Fi rs t i ndi cate d M ed Fi rs t m igh t purs ue a lte rn at ive f inanc ing . O n Augus t 27 , 200 2, S pano s en t a le tte r to M ed Fi rs t c onf

irm ing the co nte nts of

am ee tin g he ld b etw ee n M ed Fi rs t, CH PR , and S pano, w hic h S pano sa id “ se rv ed

to cl ar if y the r em ai nin g is sue s th at ne ed to be r es olv ed

so tha t the Division can fully

evaluate the Form

A and act on MedFirst’ s request for approval of it s pr opos al to ac qui re CH PR . ” I n di sc uss ing the f inanc ing opt ion s of MedFirst, Spano wrote: W e understand that MedFirst originallyanticipated that Me diq Fi nanc ia l, a s th e le ad f inanc ing gr oup, w oul d c ontri but e the en tir e $8. 5 m ill ionto Me dF ir st a s de bt f inanc ing . Y ou h av e now4

advised the Divisio n that the contribu tion b y MediqFinancial m ay co nsi st o f de bt o f $3. 5 m ill ion , and tha t M ed Fi rs t w ill pr ovi de or ar range the a ddi tio na l c onsi de ratio n ne ed ed f or the tr an sa ct ion thr oughe qui ty

inv es tm en ts i n M ed Fi rs t. Sp an o r eque ste d f

ull dis cl osur e of

the ide nti ty

of the inv es tor s, inc lud ing bio gr ap hic al inf

orm at ionand f

ing er pr int c ar ds. F urthe rm or e, the D O I ne ed ed “ the lo an ag reem en t an d a ll rel at edlo an do cu m en ta ti on as s oo n a s p os si bl e.” The M erger Agre em ent required the parties to close the transaction no later than Augus t 31 , 200 2, but the part ie s f

ai le d to c los e by

that date . O n S ep te m

be r 2, 2002 , how ever, they

agree d to an am endm ent of the agree m ent requiring a new cl osi ng d at e of

S ep te m be r 30, 200 2. T he a m en de d M er ge r A gr ee m en t gr an te d C H PR aqua lif ie d r igh t of te rm in at io n i f th e DOI di d n ot ap pr ov e th e m erg er b y Sep te m be r 30 , 20 02 . Se ct ion12. 1( f) of

the a m en de d M er ge r A gr ee m en t pr ovi de d: n o s u ch t er m i n at i o n ri g h ts h al l ex i s ti f, as o f [ Se p t emb er3 0 , 2 0 0 2 ], (i ) Purc ha se r an d S el le r have pr ovi de d th e D O I w ithany and a ll inform ation, docum ents, or other item s or m atters re quested byDO I; (i i) the D O I ha s in dic at ed to Purc ha se r that no out standi ng i ssu es or co nc er ns e xis t i n c onne ct ionw iththe gr an t of the F orm AAppl ic at ion an d th e Fo rm

AAppl ic at ionis co m

ple te in al l r es pe ct s; and ( iii ) the o n l y u n s a t i s f

i e dc o n d i t i o n t o c l o s i n g i s ap p r o v a l o f th e F o rm A Application by

the DO I.5

Purs uant t o § 1 2. 1( g) of

the a m en de d M er ge r A gr ee m en t, both C H PR and Me dF ir st w er e gr an te d an a bsol ute r igh t of

te rm inatio n if

the m er ge r did

not c los e by N ove m be r 29, 200 2. Having heard nothing from MedFirst af

ter sending the August 27 letter, Sp an o se nt an e -m ai l onS ep te m be r 8, 200 2 to Me dF ir st “ to c he ck on the status of the inform ation and do cum entation th at rem ains to be sub m itted by MedFirst. ” Sp an o no te d: It is part ic ularl y

im portant tha t w e re ce ive the loan do cum en ta tio n be ca use w e sti ll ne ed

to se ek a gr ee m en t onspe ci fi c langua ge on the m atte rs se t f

orth i n m y Augus t 27 th l ette r. Mo re ove r, if Me dF ir st int en ds t o pr oc ee d w iththe e qui ty inv es tor s, a s y ou p re vio usl y m en tio ne d, w e ne ed

to re ce ive the bio gr ap hic al inf orm at ionand fi nge rp ri nt c ar ds A SA P in o rd er to co nduc t the ne ce ssary ba ck gr ound ch ec ks. Me dF ir st c onc ed es it

did not pr ovi de the D O I w iththe inf orm at ionr eque ste d by Spano. I n his affidavit, Spano states “ MedFirst did not su bm it the necessary ad dit ion al doc um en ta tio n f or the pr opos ed

Me diq Fi nanc ia l l oan to the Co lor ad o D ivi sio n of

I nsur an ce ” an d “ Me dF ir st d id n ot s ubm it the ne ce ssary doc um en ta tio n co nc er nin g th e pr opos ed

e qui ty inv es tor s inthe tr an sa ct ionto the Co lor ad o Div is io n o f In su ran ce.” The par ties did no t close prior to Septem ber 30, 2002. In e arly

Oc tober 2002 , Me dFirst subm itted to CHPR a proposed secondam endm ent to the Merger6

A gr ee m en t, e xte ndi ng the c los ing da te to N ove m be r 1, 200 2 and r ed

uc ing the pu rch as e p ric e. CHPR re jecte d t he pro po se d s eco ndam en dm en t. On Novem ber 14, 2002, CH PR sent MedFir st a notice term inating the am ended Me rg er A gr ee m en t. U nde r div er sity

j ur isd ic tio n, Me dF ir st b ro ught sui t a ga ins t C H PR

a lle gin g br ea chof c ontra ct and b re ac h of

im pli ed duty of goo d f ai th and f ai r de al ing , seeking sp ecific perform ance and inj unctive relief. CH PR r espond ed that MedFirst fa iled to satisfy the requirem ents of § 12.1(f) of the am ended Merger A gr ee m en t, and the re fo re it w as e nti tle d to te rm inate the a gr ee m en t. The district court granted summ ary j udgm ent to CHP R, deciding CHPR w as en tit le d to te rm inate the Me rg er A gr ee m en t at any

ti m e af te r Se pte m

be r 30, 200 2 be cau se Med Fi rs t fa il edto pro du ce al l o f th e d oc um en ts req ue st edby the DOI. The district court decided MedF irst’ s claim s of breac h of contract and im plied duty of goo d f ai th aro se a ft er

CH PR ’ s r igh t of

te rm inatio n, and the re fo re it did not need to consid er C HP R’ s actions after that date. Me dF ir st a

ppe al s, arg uin g ( 1) the dis tr ic t c ourt a ppl ie d an un re as ona

ble and ab sur d in te rp re ta tio n of

the Me rg er

A gr ee m en t, r es ult ing in ane rr one ous gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t, ( 2) und isp ute d m at er ia l f ac ts e sta bli sh M ed Fi rs t i s e nti tle d to sum m ar y j udgm en t onit s br ea chof c ontra ct and b re ac h of

duty of goo d f ai th7

claim s, ( 3) summ ary

j udgm ent for CH PR w as im proper because the district court based its decisio n on credibilitydeterm ination s, im proper infere nces, and dis puted m at er ia l f ac ts, and ( 4) the dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n by

de ny ing Me dF ir st e x t e n s i o n o f

t i me t o c o mp l e t e d i s c o v e ry.

II. D ISCU SSION W e re vie wthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t or de nia l of sum m ar y j udgm en t de no vo . Pe terson v. B

MI Re fractor ies , 1 3 2 F. 3 d1 4 0 5 , 1 4 1 1 (1 1 th Ci r. 1 9 9 8 ). We rev ie w th e d is tri ctco ur t’s d is co ve ry ord ers foran ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Iraola & CI A , S. A . v . Ki m be rly -C

lar k Co rp. , 325 F. 3d 12 74, 1286 (11t h Cir. 2003 ). A. Th e dis tri ct

c ourt did not e rr i n in te rpr et ing

theM er ge r A gre em en t In interpreting a contract, "when a docum ent's language is clear, a court cannot indulge in cons truction or interpretation of its pl ain m eaning." Lambert v. Be rkley S. Condo. Ass'n, Inc. , 680 So. 2d 58 8, 590 (Fla. 4th DCA1996 ). "[W ] here a co ntr ac t i s si le nt a s to apart ic ular m atte r, c ourts s houl d no t, und er the gui se of construction , im

pose on p arties contractual r ights and duties which they them selves om itted." BM W of N. Am ., Inc. v. Krathen , 471 So. 2d 58 5, 587 (Fla. 4th DCA1985 ). Section 12.1(f) of the am ended Merger A greem ent providedCH PR a qua lif ie d r igh t of

te rm inatio n. S pe ci fi ca lly , § 12 . 1( f) (i ) al low ed te rm inatio n if8

Me dF ir st f

ai le d to pr ovi de the D O I w ith“ any and a ll inf

orm at ion , doc um en ts, or oth er it em s or m atte rs r eque ste d by

D O I. ” T he pla in l an gua ge of thi s pr ovi sio n ha s n o l im it at io n o n t he ki ndof i nf orm at io n o r do cu m en ts th e DOI co ul d re qu es t. Si m ilarl y , § 12 . 1( f) (i i) a llo w ed te rm inatio n if

the D O I ha d “ out standi ng i ssu es or co nc er ns . . . in co nne ct ionw iththe gr an t of the F orm AAppl ic at ion ” or

if the Form A application was incom plete. Med Fi rs t co nc ed es itdi d n ot pro vi de all do cu m en ts req ue st edby the DOI. In his affidavit, the D OI ’ s m ain representative oversee ing th e m erger, Brian Sp an o, state s M ed Fi rs t f

ai le d to sub m it the “ ne ce ssary a ddi tio na l do cum en ta tio n fo r the pr opos ed

Me diq Fi nanc ia l l oan” a s w el l a s th e “ ne ce ssary doc um en ta tio n concerning the propo sed equityinvestors in the transaction.” Thus, both parties an d th e re gul at or

y a ge nc y ove rs ee ing the m er ge r ag re e Me dF ir st f ai le d to pr ovi de

“ any and all inform ation, docum ents, or other item s or m atters re quested byDO I. ” MedFirst theref

ore did not satis fy

§ 12.1(f)( i). L ike w ise , in both hi s Augus t 27 , 200 2 le tte r an d S ep te m be r 8, 200 2 e -m ai l, Spano indi cated continuin g concerns regar ding the financing of the propos ed m er ge r an d f

ull dis cl osur e of

the ide nti ty

of the inv es tor s. T hose c onc er ns ap pare ntl y

w er e ne ve r ad dr es se d by Me dF ir st, and the re fo re Me dF ir st d id n ot satisfy § 12.1(f)( ii).9

MedFirst describes the district court’ s reading of the am ended Merger A gr ee m en t a s un re as ona

ble and a bsur d. S pe ci fi ca lly , Me dF ir st c ont en ds § 12 . 1( f) (i ) al low s on ly

“ re as ona ble ” re que sts of

inf orm at ionor

doc um en ts b y

the D O I. S uc h ar ea din g, it

say s, is bol ste re d by

§ 7. 2 of the Me rg er

A gr ee m en t, w hic h de sc ri be s th e part ie s’ obl igatio ns r eg ar din g pr ep ar at ionand p ro se cu tio n of the F orm Aappl ic at ion . S ec tio n 7. 2 st at es :

. . . Following the execution o f the A greem ent, P urchaser and Seller shall proceed as expeditiou sly as practica

ble, . . . to file with D OI a Form A Application . . . and any other necessary

instrum ents that m ay be r equir ed

in co nne ct ionthe re w ith , to obt ai n th e co nse nt and approval by

DO I of the Me rger. E ach of Purc haser and Seller agree to . . . ( ii) pr ovi de w ha te ve r ad dit ion al inf orm at ionD O I re as ona

bly req ue st s i n p ro ces si ng th e Fo rm A App li cat io n . . . MedFirst contends on ly

rea sonable requests byDO I ar e owe d com pliance. I n short, MedFirst ar gues the DO I’ s requests for inform ation and do cum ents wer e u n r e a s o n ab l e , an d

th e r e f o r e i td i dn o tn e e dt o c o mp l y. E ve n un de r Me dF ir st’ s in te rp re ta tio n of § 12 . 1( f) , CH PR

w as e nti tle d to te rm inate the a gr ee m en t. T he D O I, an a ge nc y c harg ed w ithove rs ee ing the pr opr ie ty of the m er ge r, r eque ste d do cum en ts and i nf orm at ionr el at ed

to fi nanc ing of th e p ro po se d m erg er, an d we s ee n ot hi ng un reas on ab le ab ou t i ts req ue st s. Me dF ir st’ s in iti al f

inanc ing plan w as a“ Pr el im inary L oan C om

m itm en t” w ith conting encies, and the DO I could reasonably request inform ation regarding such10

co nti nge nt f

inanc ing . Me dF ir st the n r ai se d th e poss ibi lity of a lte rn at ive f

inanc ing of the m er ge r, and the D O I soug ht i nf orm at ionr eg ar din g th at

pos sib ili ty . W e do not regard the DO I's r equests for inform ation un reasonable. Beca use MedFirst failed to satisfy either § 12.1(f

)(i) or § 12.1(f)( ii), C HP R wa s en t i t l edt o t er m i n at e t h e a m en d edMe rg erAg re emen t . Th e d i s tri ct co u rt ’s re ad ing of

the Me rg er

A gr ee m en t w as ne ith er

unr ea sona

ble nor absur d, and i t di d not e rr in its int er

pr et at ion . B. M ed F irs t i s no t e nti tle d to sum m aryjud gm en t on it

s br ea ch of co ntrac t an d br ea ch of du ty of go od fa it h c la ims Me dF ir st’ s br ea chof

c ontra ct and b re ac h of

duty of goo d f ai th c la im s ari se fr om a ct ion s take n by

CH PR a ft er the S ep te m

be r 30, 200 2 c los ing da te . Me dF ir st s ee k s s p ec i fi c p er fo rman ce o f t h e c o n tra ct , i n ju n ct i v e r el i ef

re g ar d i n g CH PR ’s ac tio ns, and c om

pe nsator y dam ag es . S inc e CH PR

w as e nti tle d to te rm inate the Merger Agre em ent, no rem edy

is available for Me dFirst’ s claim s. T he district court did no t err. C. Summary judgment for CHP R w as not improper Me dF ir st c ont en ds the dis tr ic t c ourt ba se d it s de ci sio n onc re dib ili ty determ ination s, an infer ence drawn against the no n-m ovin g party , and dis puted m at er ia l f ac ts. "C re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio ns, the w ei ghi ng o f the e vid en ce , and the11

draw ing of legitim ate infer ences fr om the fac ts are j ury

functions, not th ose of a j udge." Re eves v . Sanderson Plum bing Products, I

nc. , 530 U . S. 133 , 150 , 120 S. Ct . 209 7, 211 0 ( 2000 ) (quot ing Anderson v. L iberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U . S. 242 , 255, 106 S. Ct. 2505 , 2513 (1986)). A s to c re dib ili ty , Me dF ir st arg ue s th e dis tr ic t c ourt a cc ep te d th e cr ed ibi lity of Br ian S pano’ s a ff

idavit ove r the te sti m ony

it s own w itn es se s. Me dF ir st i s inc or re ct . T he dis tr ic t c ourt m er el y a cc ep te d th e fa ct

Me dF ir st d id n ot p ro vid e the D O I w itha ll inf

orm at ionand d oc um en ts i t r eque ste d, af ac t c onc ed ed

by Me dF ir st and confirm ed by

Spano. F rom

that conceded fact, a legal deter m ination wa s draw n. N o credibility

determ ination wa s m ade. As to im proper infere nces, M edFirst claim s the district court m ischaracter ized Spano’ s affidavit to m ean the original MediqFinancial loan co m m itm en t w as “ no l onge r av ai la ble . ” P ar ag ra

ph 1 7( c) of

S pano’ s a ff

idavit state d: “ G ar

y Matz ne r ha d a dvi se d m e that the Me diq Fi nanc ia l l oan w oul d be re duc ed to $3. 5 m ill ionand tha t M ed Fi rs t w oul d r ai se the a ddi tio na l $5 . 0 m ill ion fr om e qui ty inv es tor s. ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t dr awan in fe re nc e fr om thi s state m en t i n it s op ini on, but r athe r too k th e pla in m eanin g of it and s ta te d th e or igi na l M ed iqF inanc ia l l oan w as r ev ise d, and thus no l onge r av ai la ble . A t m ost , the dis tr ic t c ourt m er el y

c hara ct er iz ed

S pano’ s a ff

idavit state m en t and c ite d it

in a12

footnot e in its order. No infer ence against MedFirst, the non-m ovin g party , w as dr awn f ro m thi s c hara ct er iz at ion , and n o in fe re nc e w as ne ce ssary f or the hol din g. As to disput ed m aterial f

acts, MedFirst claim s CHP R breac hed the Merger A gr ee m en t pr ior

to Se pte m

be r 30, 200 2 by

art if ic ia lly inc re as ing the appare nt va lue of CH PR . Me dF ir st s ee m s to arg ue it w as the re fo re una

ble to pr ovi de a ll the doc um en ts and i nf

orm at ionr eque ste d by

the D O I. B ut M ed Fi rs t f ai le d to pr ovi de the D O I w ithdoc um en ts and i nf orm at ionr eg ar din g it s own f inanc ing plans, and inform ation regarding its o wn investors. CH PR had no control over that inf orm at ion , and M ed Fi rs t pr ovi de s no sho w ing that C H PR im pe de d it s a

bil ity to pr oduc e suc h in fo rm at ion . A cc or din gly , w ithne ith er pr oof nor e ve n an a sse rt ion as to howCH PR

pr ev en te d M ed Fi rs t f

ro m pr oduc ing inf

orm at ionand d oc um en ts regarding its own financing plans , no m aterial f acts w ere in disp ute. The district court did not err in granting summ ary j udgm ent to CHP R. D. Th e dis tri ct

c ourt did not abu se it s di sc re tio n byde ny ing

M ed F irs t t im e to ex te nd t he c om ple tio n of dis co ve ry Me dF ir st c la im s th e dis tr ic t c ourt a buse d it s di sc re tio n by

de ny ing aj oin t m otion to extend the deadlin e of discovery , and claim s it was sever ely prej udiced by suc h de nia l. W e not e, how ev er , "[ d] istri ct j udge s are a cc or de d w ide dis cr et ion in ruling upon discovery

m otion s, and appellate r eview is a ccordingly defer ential."13

Iraola & CI

A , S. A . v . Ki m be rly -C

lar k Co rp. , 325 F . 3d 1 274, 128 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) (quot ing H

arr is v . Ch apm an , 97 F.3d49 9, 5 06 (11 th Cir . 19 96 )). "M or eo ve r, we will not overturn discov ery rulings u nless it is sh own that the District C ourt's ruling resulted in subst antial harm to the appellant's case. " Id . ( quot at ionm ar

ks and citation om itted). MedFirst’ s original com

plaint was filed in June 200 3, and its am ended co m pla int in Se pte m

be r 2003 . I n N ove m

be r 2003 , the dis tr ic t c ourt e nte re d it s p r e - tr i a l o r d e r , g i v i n g th e p a rt i e s n e a r l y n i n e mo n th s t o c o mp l e t e d i s c o v e ry, at i me pe ri od l onge r than th e part ie s th em se lve s r eque ste d. N ei the r party f ile d a de po si ti on un ti l J ul y

2, 2 00 4, o nl y

a few week s p rio r to th e Ju ly 28, 2 00 4 d ead li ne . Init s Ju ly 15, 200 4 or de r de ny ing the m oti on t o e xte nd the de ad lin e fo r co m ple tio n of dis co ve ry , the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound the part ie s ha d no t di lig en tly pursued di scovery . W e agre e. MedFirst further argues the denial of extension o f tim e for discovery subs tantially

prej udiced its claim s by

precluding access to testim ony from key witnesses. Both witnesses MedFirst wished to depose, however , w ouldhave been fo r pu rp os es of t ry in g t o p ro ve bre ach of c on tra ctan d b reac h o f du ty of go odfai th . T he ir te sti m ony

w oul d no t c hange the f

ac t M ed Fi rs t f

ai le d to sa tis fy

the requirem ents of § 12.1(f).14

A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n by

de ny ing the mo t i o n f o r e x t e n s i o n o f

t i me t o c o mp l e t e d i s c o v e ry. III. C ONC LUS ION T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in its ana ly sis of

the Me rg er

A gr ee m en t, and pr ope rl y aw ar de d sum

m ar y j udgm en t t o C H PR . N or did the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse it s dis cr et ionin de ny ing the dis co ve ry m oti on. AFFIRMED.