IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-11138

Summary Calendar

BAIN COTTON COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CHESNUTT COTTON COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:11-CV-189

Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Bain Cotton Company (“Bain”) appeals the district

court’s denial of Bain’s motion to vacate an arbitration award on grounds of the

arbitrators’ misconduct in denying discovery requests and Bain’s motion to reopen the case, vacate the arbitration award, and allow discovery, based on Bain’s

assertion that the arbitrators erred reversibly in denying discovery at that level,

claiming that the arbitrator’s denial of discovery evidenced partiality or

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 24, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

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

corruption on their part. Bain argues in its appellate brief that, even under the

extremely narrow and limited grounds on which a court may reverse an

arbitration award, the arbitrators “first ignored Bain’s repeated requests for

discovery, and then summarily condemned Bain for failing to provide proof

supporting its claims – proof that was out of Bain’s control and that the

[arbitrators] refused to discover.”

This appeal presents a quintessential example of a principal distinction

between arbitration and litigation, especially in the scope of review. Had this

discovery dispute arisen in and been ruled on by the district court, it is not

unlikely that the denial of Bain’s pleas would have led to reversal; however,

under the “strong federal policy favoring arbitration, judicial review of an

arbitration award is extremely narrow.”1 Under §10 of the FAA, an arbitration

award may be vacated only if the reviewing court finds that the award was

procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; that there was evident partiality

or corruption in the arbitrators; that the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct

in refusing to postpone the hearing on sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to

hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or any other

misbehavior by which the rights of any party are prejudiced, or the arbitrators

exceeded their powers or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and

definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.2

Regardless whether the district court or this court – or both – might

disagree with the arbitrators’ handling of Bain’s dicovery requests,that handling

does not rise to the level required for vacating under any of the FAA’s narrow

and exclusive grounds. Our review of the district court’s extensively analyzed

Order of October 17, 2012, from which Bain appeals satisfies us that its

1 Rain C. II Carbon, L.L.C. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 674 Fed.3d 469, 471-72 (5th Cir.2012).

2 See 9 U.S.C. §10.

2

 Case: 12-11138 Document: 00512284193 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2013
No. 12-11138

reasoning is sound and that none of the acts or rulings of the arbitrators are

subject to reversal or the case subject to being reopened. Accordingly, for

essentially the same reasons set forth by the district court in its Order, the

court’s denial of Bain’s motion 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