Kenworth and Harland petitioned for the writ of mandamus before the hearing could be held. Kenworth and Harland ask this Court to order the trial judge to vacate his two orders allowing unrestricted discovery. In one of those orders, the trial judge stated that Kenworth and Harland had not made a prima facie showing that the arbitration agreement is enforceable. The trial court's orders challenged by the mandamus petition allowed unrestricted discovery. A petition for the writ of mandamus is the proper method for securing review of a trial court's discovery order.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy.
Kenworth and Harland argue that the trial judge abused his discretion by allowing unrestricted discovery pending a resolution of the question whether the plaintiffs must arbitrate their claims. Although the judge did not err in allowing the parties to conduct discovery, he did err in failing to restrict that discovery to the question whether the plaintiffs had agreed to arbitrate their dispute with Kenworth and Harland. Hooper, C.J., and Maddox, Houston, See, Lyons, Brown, Johnstone, and England, JJ., concur.