location of the subject matter of the contract is important when it deals with something in a fixed location). Of these factors, the single non-neutral factor, place of contracting, weighs in favor of applying Texas law. Thus, the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, far from militating in favor of the application of New Mexico law, supports our holding. CONCLUSION {57} We reverse the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration. On remand to the district court, Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration should be granted. {58} IT IS SO ORDERED. JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge I CONCUR: RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge (dissenting). 1 See, e.g.,In re Halliburton Co., No. 01-09-00150-CV, 2009 WL 1886659, at *2, 4-5 (Tex. Ct. App. July 2, 2009) (mem.) (<HOLDING>). 2 Our holding is not meant to indicate
holding that the plaintiff a former halliburton employee was bound to arbitrate disputes in compliance with the program in spite of his contention that he never received the program materials by mail because halliburton provided uncontroverted evidence that copies of the    program materials were sent to the plaintiff in a properly addressed packet and receipt of the materials was therefore presumed holding in an obscenity case it was not error to fail to require expert affirmative evidence that the materials were obscene recognizing the protection of preliminary governmental materials holding that fedrcivp 26b3 does not require absolute protection for opinion work product and noting that these materials may be discovered and admitted when mental impressions are at issue in the case and the need for the materials is compelling holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of the right to access to the courts based on allegations that the defendants confiscated their litigation materials absent any allegation that such materials were critical to pursuing the plaintiffs underlying claims