9 . Alim argues that the district court erred in not granting him leave to conduct additional discovery concerning KBR’s previous JAMS arbitrations, including those with the second arbitrator here. While Alim made two passing references to this discovery request in his motion to vacate, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in not granting Alim leave to conduct additional discovery because Alim failed to explain, much less demonstrate, that his arguments necessitated further discovery because they "implicated factual questions that cannot be reliably resolved without some further disclosure.” See Karaha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara, 364 F.3d 274, 305 (5th Cir.2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
holding that an additional remedy does not constitute an additional requirement holding that the role of the courts is limited to ascertaining whether there exists one of the specific grounds for the vacation of an award as provided in  10 of the arbitration act and that the court should not review the arbitration proceeding for errors of law or fact holding in the context of an arbitration award confirmation proceeding that the decision as to whether to allow additional discovery is an entirely practical one involving a balancing of the need for additional information with its effect on the arbitration process holding that general allegations of a need for additional discovery will not suffice the person presenting such a claim must show what discovery has been obtained why it is inadequate and the what additional information he expects to obtain from additional discovery holding that it was within the trial courts discretion to refuse any additional discovery and that the courts refusal to allow additional discovery was not an abuse of discretion