### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-11138 Summary Calendar

BAIN COTTON COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant
v. CHESNUTT COTTON COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court f or the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:11-CV-189

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Plaintiff-Appellant Bai n C otton C o mpany (“Bain”) appeals the district court’s denial o f Bain’s motion to vacate an arbitration award on grounds of thearbitrators’ misconduct in denying discovery requests and Bain’s motion to reopen the case, vacate the arbitration award, and allow discovery, based o n Bain’s assertion that the arbitrators erred r eversibly in denying discovery at that level, claiming t hat the arbitrator ’ s denial of discovery evidenced partiality or U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 24, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5, the court has determ ined that this op inion s hould not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-11138 Document: 00512284193 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2013No. 12-11138

corruption on their part. Bain argues i n its a ppellate brief that, even under the extremely narrow a nd li m i ted grounds on which a court may reverse an
a rbitration award, the arbitrators “first ignored Bain’s repeated requests f o r discover y , and then summarily condemned Bain for failing to provide proof supporting its claims – proof that was out of Bain’s con t r o l a n d that the [arbitrators] refused to discover.” This appeal presents a quintessential e x a m ple of a principal distinction between arbitration and litigation, espe c i a lly in the scope of review. Had this discovery dispute arisen in and been ruled o n by the district c our t , i t i s not unlikely that the denial o f Bain’s pleas would have led to reversal; h owever, under the “strong federal policy favoring arbitration, judicial revie w o f an arbitration award is extremely narrow.” 1 U nder §10 of the FAA, an arbitration

a w a r d may be vacated only if the reviewing court finds that the award w a s procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; t h at there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators; that the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the h earing on sufficient cause shown, or in r efusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the c o ntroversy; or any other misbehavior by w hich the rights of a ny p arty are prejudiced, or the arbitrators exceeded their powers or so imperfectly e xecuted them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. 2 Regardless whether th e district court o r this court – or both – might di s a gr e e with the arbitrators’ h andling o f Bain’s dicovery r e qu e s t s , th at h a n dl i n g does not rise t o the level r equired for v a cat i n g u n d e r any of the FAA’s narrow and exclu sive grounds. O ur review of the district court’s extensively analyzed Order of October 17, 2012, from which Bain appeals satisfies us th a t i t s

1 Ra i n C. II Ca rbon, L. L. C. v . ConocoPhi ll ip s Co. , 674 Fed

. 3d 469, 471- 72 ( 5 th Cir. 2012)

.
2 See 9 U. S. C. §10. 2 Case: 12-11138 Document: 00512284193 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2013No. 12-11138

r easoning is sound and that none of the acts or rulings o f t he arbitrators a re
s u bj e c t t o reversal or t he case subject t o being reopened. Accordingly, f o r
e s s e n t i ally the same reasons set forth by the d istrict court in its O rder, t h e court’s denial o f Bain’s m otion to reopen the case, vacate the arbitration award, and obtain additional discovery is AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 12-11138 Document: 00512284193 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/24/2013