LD 1218
pg. 61
Page 60 of 94 An Act To Enact the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act Page 62 of 94
Download Bill Text
LR 468
Item 1

 
found that, under language in the FAA similar to that in Section
7 of the UAA, arbitrators did not have power to issue subpoenas
to non-parties to produce materials prior to the arbitration
hearing. This holding is contrary to that of three federal
district court opinions under the FAA that have enforced
arbitral subpoenas for prehearing discovery so that arbitrators
could make a full and fair determination. Amgen, Inc. v. Kidney
Ctr. of Delaware County, 879 F. Supp. 878 (N.D. Ill. 1995);
Meadows Indemnity Co. v. Nutmeg Ins. Co., 157 F.R.D. 42 (M.D.
Tenn. 1994); Stanton v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 685
F. Supp. 1241 (S.D. Fla. 1988). However, in Integrity Insurance
Co. v. American Centennial Insurance Co., 885 F. Supp. 69 (S.D.
N.Y. 1995), the court enforced a subpoena for documents of a
nonparty but refused enforcement of a subpoena to depose that
person because to do so would require the person to appear
twice-once for the hearing and once for the deposition. Because
of the unclear case law, Section 17(d) specifically states that
arbitrators have subpoena authority for discovery matters under
the RUAA.

 
7. Section 17(f) has been broadened to include witness fees
for attending non-hearing depositions or discovery proceedings
and indicates that the same rules in civil actions apply to
arbitration proceedings for compelling a person under subpoena
to testify and for compelling the payment of witness fees.

 
8. Third parties. It is clear from the case law that
arbitrators have the power under the UAA (Section 7) and the
FAA (Section 7) to issue orders, such as subpoenas, to non-
parties whose information may be necessary for a full and fair
hearing. Amgen, Inc. v. Kidney Ctr. of Delaware County, Ltd.,
879 F. Supp. 878 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (holding that arbitrator had
the power under FAA to subpoena a third party to produce
documents and to testify at a deposition); Meadows Indem. Co.
v. Nutmeg Ins. Co., 157 F.R.D. 42 (M.D. Tenn. 1994) (holding
that because the burden was minimal, the nonparty would have
to produce documents pursuant to arbitrator's subpoena under
FAA); Stanton v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, Inc., 685 F.
Supp. 1241 (S.D. Fla. 1988) (upholding subpoena issued by
arbitrator under FAA that nonparties must appear at prehearing
conference and arbitration hearing); Drivers Local Union No.
639 v. Seagram Sales Corp., 531 F. Supp. 364, 366 (D.D.C.
1981) ("the Uniform Arbitration Act provides for the issuance
of subpoenas by an arbitrator to non-party witnesses at an
arbitration proceeding, to compel their testimony or the
production of documents"); United Elec. Workers Local 893 v.
Schmitz, 576 N.W.2d 357 (Iowa 1998) (holding that that Iowa
Arbitration Act confers on arbitrators the power to subpoena
nonparty witnesses); but see
COMSAT Corp. v. National Science Foundations, supra; Integrity
Ins. Co. v. American Centennial Ins. Co., supra. Some state
arbitration laws broadly allow


Page 60 of 94 Top of Page Page 62 of 94