National Grange Mutual Insurance v. Sharp Equipment Co. of Reading PA

Summarize Case

Related Cases

Opinions of the United 2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-17-2003 Natl Grange Mutl Ins v. Sharp Equip Co Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket 02-1876 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003 Recommended Citation "Natl Grange Mutl Ins v. Sharp Equip Co" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 875. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/875 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No: 02-1876 NATIONAL GRANGE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. SHARP EQUIPMENT COMPANY OF READING PA; KOREY BLANCK (E. D. of PA Civil No. 01-cv-00628) SHARP EQUIPMENT COMPANY OF READING PA; KOREY BLANCK v. NATIONAL GRANGE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (E. D. of PA Civil No. 01-cv-01184) Sharp Equipment Company of Reading, PA and Korey Blanck, Appellants Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Civ. No. 01-cv-00628) District Court: Hon. Franklin S. VanAntwerpen Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) December 17, 2002 Before: NYGAARD, ALITO and McKEE, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: January 17, 2003) OPINION McKEE, Circuit Judge. Sharp Equipment Co. of Reading PA, and its sole shareholder and president, Korey Blanck, are insureds of National Grange Mutual Insurance Co. They appeal the district court’s order granting National Grange’s motion for discovery sanctions by dismissing Sharp’s and Blanck’s breach of contract and bad faith actions. We will affirm. Inasmuch as the district court has already set forth the factual and procedural history of this case, it is unnecessary to repeat that history here. See Sharp Equipment v. National Grange, Nos. 01-0628 and 01-1184, 2002 WL 442823 (E.D.Pa. Mar. 1, 2001). It is sufficient to note for our purposes that the record fully supports the district court’s finding that there have “been repeated, prejudicial, and wilful delays in document discovery, answering interrogatories and Mr. Blanck’s depositions.” Id. at *1. Moreover, the district court has fully and completely analyzed each of the relevant six factors we established in Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), for determining whether dismissal is an appropriate discovery sanction. We can add nothing to district court’s thoughtful and searching analysis. The district court clearly did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the actions. Therefore, we will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the district court. TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Please file the foregoing Opinion. /s/Theodore A. McKee Circuit Judge 2 3