Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00410/USCOURTS-alsd-1_07-cv-00410-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LINA SCURTU, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 07-0410-WS-B

 )

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT )

EXCHANGE, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER 

This matter, which has been stayed pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 3 pending arbitration of all of

plaintiffs’ causes of action against defendants Hospitality and Catering Management Services

and Wendco of Alabama, Inc., comes before the Court on the parties’ joint Motion for Leave of

Court to Serve Third-Party Subpoenas Under Authority of the Federal Court (doc. 60). The

parties explain that they are seeking to collect relevant evidence from third parties “who would

be more likely to respond to a federal subpoena rather than a discovery request by an attorney

and/or arbitrator.” On that basis, the parties request leave to issue federal court subpoenas for

the arbitration proceedings, using the above federal action caption and case number. They cite

no authority for this request.

The Court appreciates the parties’ motivations of wanting to handle third-party discovery

in an efficient manner. But the law is not in their favor. In Thompson v. Zavin, 607 F. Supp.2d

780 (C.D. Cal. 1984), the district court considered and rejected an analogous request. The

Thompson court observed that nothing in the Federal Arbitration Act “authorizes further action

by a federal court once the court stays a matter, except that the court can enforce a subpoena

issued by the arbitrators or confirm, vacate or modify the arbitrators’ award once it is made.” Id.

at 782. The Thompson court further reasoned that if federal court subpoenas were issued in an

arbitration, “it would interfere with a matter entrusted by federal law to the arbitrators, without

any congressional expression reserving to the courts the power to issue, rather than merely

Case 1:07-cv-00410-WS-B Document 61 Filed 06/30/08 Page 1 of 3
-2-

enforce, subpoenas.” Id. at 783. This reasoning is persuasive that this Court should not (and

perhaps cannot) interfere in arbitration proceedings by allowing federal court subpoenas to be

issued for purposes of discovery in that arbitration.

Moreover, the Court draws guidance from Suarez-Valdez v. Shearson Lehman/American

Exp., Inc., 858 F.2d 648 (11th Cir. 1988), wherein the Eleventh Circuit explained that “[a]n

agreement to arbitrate is an agreement to proceed under arbitration and not under court rules.” 

Id. at 649. On that basis, the Suarez-Valdez panel vacated a district court order requiring the

parties to engage in, and submit to, discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in a

matter stayed for arbitration, suggesting that allowing district courts to order discovery in

arbitration proceedings “risks a plunge into judicial control over arbitration.” Id. at n.1. The

Suarez-Valdez decision would appear to forbid the Court from authorizing issuance of federal

court subpoenas under Rule 45, Fed.R.Civ.P., for a stayed arbitration matter. The parties having

agreed to arbitrate their dispute, they cannot rely on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to

procure discovery from third parties under the auspices of this federal court.

This conclusion is reinforced by examination of the Federal Arbitration Act itself, which

outlines a clear procedure for issuance of subpoenas to parties or non-parties in arbitration

proceedings. According to the Act, an arbitrator “may summon in writing any person to attend

before [him] ... as a witness and in a proper case to bring with him or them any book, record,

document, or paper which may be deemed material as evidence in the case. ... Said summons

shall issue in the name of the arbitrator ... and shall be directed to the said person and shall be

served in the same manner as subpoenas to appear and testify before the court.” 9 U.S.C. § 7. 

The parties suggest that the witnesses in question may prove unwilling to respond to an

arbitrator’s summons. However, the Act would provide a clear remedy. Indeed, the Act creates

an enforcement mechanism in the event the party or non-party refuses to comply with an

arbitrator’s summons, to-wit: “[I]f any person or persons so summoned to testify shall refuse or

neglect to obey said summons, upon petition the United States district court for the district in

which such arbitrators, or a majority of them, are sitting may compel the attendance of such

person or persons before said arbitrator or arbitrators, or punish said person or persons for

contempt in the same manner provided by law for securing the attendance of witnesses or their

punishment for neglect or refusal to attend in the courts of the United States.” Id. Thus, this

Case 1:07-cv-00410-WS-B Document 61 Filed 06/30/08 Page 2 of 3
-3-

statute makes clear that the time for invoking federal court assistance in connection with

arbitration subpoenas is in enforcing, rather than issuing, them.

The parties have made no showing that the statutory procedure for summoning witnesses

in arbitral proceedings, and for judicial enforcement of such summonses, will be inadequate to

procure compliance here, or that any extraordinary circumstances exist that might warrant the

issuance of Rule 45 subpoenas in this stayed arbitration matter. For these reasons, and in the

absence of any citations to authority by the parties establishing that Rule 45 subpoenas might be

appropriate or permissible in this action, the Motion for Leave of Court to Serve Third-Party

Subpoenas Under Authority of the Federal Court (doc. 60) is denied.

 

DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of June, 2008.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00410-WS-B Document 61 Filed 06/30/08 Page 3 of 3