Court Opinion

ID: 2834449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-02 17:50:02.081295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:38.290212
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
 
════════════
No. 08-0800
════════════
 
In re Houston Pipe Line 
Company, et al., Relators
 
 
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
On Petition for Writ of 
Mandamus
════════════════════════════════════════════════════
 
 
On Motion for 
Rehearing
 
 
O’Connor 
complains on rehearing that our opinion may be misinterpreted to foreclose all 
pre-arbitration discovery in the underlying case 
because we have vacated the underlying discovery order and directed the trial 
court to rule on the pending motion to compel arbitration. O’Connor submits that 
such an interpretation would conflict with the Court’s recognition here that 
pre-arbitration discovery is permissible when a trial court needs additional 
information to make its determination regarding the scope of the arbitration 
provision or other issues of arbitrability. We 
reiterate that the discovery order below was overbroad and must be vacated, but 
that the trial court retains discretion to order limited discovery on issues of 
scope or arbitrability, if necessary. We further 
reiterate that motions to compel arbitration and any reasonable discovery should 
be resolved without delay.
O’Connor’s 
motion for rehearing is overruled.
OPINION 
DELIVERED: October 23, 2009.