In Re Houston Pipe Line Co, LP., No. 08-0800 (Tex. Oct. 23, 2009)(per curiam)
IN RE HOUSTON PIPE LINE COMPANY, L.P., ET AL.; from Victoria County;
13th district (13-07-00299-CV & 13-07-00362-CV, 269 SW3d 90, 08-26-08)
Supplemental Per Curiam Opinion
View Electronic Briefs in IN RE HOUSTON PIPE LINE CO., L.P. D/B/A HOUSTON PIPE LINE CO.
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
In re Houston Pipe Line Company (Tex. 2009) (Rudimentary Opinion on
Motion for Rehearing)
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
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.
════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
INFO AND LINKS TO ORIGINAL TEXAS SUPREME COURT OPINION IN
In Re Houston Pipe Line Co., LP (Tex. 2009),
No. 08-0800 (Tex. Jul. 3, 2009)(per curiam) (arbitration mandamus) (discovery orders and motion to compel
arbitration: interaction of FAA and Texas law) (trial court ordered to rule on motion to compel arbitration, and
to vacate pre-arbitration discovery orders found to be overbroad)(oil and gas law and litigation)(arbitration
under the FAA in commercial disputes)
THE GIST: At issue in this proceeding is whether the trial court abused its discretion by permitting discovery
on damage calculations and other potential defendants, instead of deciding the motion to compel arbitration.
For the reasons below, we conclude the trial court should not have ordered pre-arbitration discovery, but
rather should have decided the motion to compel arbitration. ... [W]e conditionally grant the writ and direct
the trial court to vacate the discovery order and to rule on the motion to compel arbitration.
IN RE HOUSTON PIPE LINE COMPANY, L.P., ET AL.; from Victoria County;
13th district (13-07-00299-CV & 13-07-00362-CV, [interlocutory appeal and mandamus petition]
269 SW3d 90, 08-26-08 Opinion of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals by Chief Justice Rogelio Valdez denying
mandamus relief)
stay order issued October 17, 2008, lifted
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, the Texas Supreme
Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus.
Get this Per Curiam Opinion [4 pages in pdf]
E-Briefs in Tex. 2009 No. 08-0800 IN RE HOUSTON PIPE LINE CO., L.P. D/B/A HOUSTON PIPE LINE CO.
BLOG ENTRIES & WEB NEWS ITEMS ON THIS CASE:
Texas SC directs judge to rule on arbitration motion (Southeast Texas Record - S.E. Texas' Legal Journal)
Pre-Arbitration Discovery Quashed by Texas High Court: (ADR Law Texas blog)