1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

CVS Health Corporation, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Vividus LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. MC-15-00093-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is Vividus LLC and HMX Services LLC’s1 petition seeking enforcement 

of a Subpoena Duces Tecum issued in the underlying arbitration matter between them and 

CVS Health Corporation, Caremark LLC, and Caremark PCS LLC (“CVS/Caremark”). 

(Doc. 1, Pet.; see CVS Health Corp., Caremark, LLC and Caremark PCS, LLC v. 

Vividus, LLC f/k/a HM Compounding Services, LLC, and HMX Services, LLC d/b/a HM 

Compounding, Case No.: 01-14-0002-0801 (the “Arizona Arbitration”).) The arbitration 

panel in the Arizona Arbitration issued the Subpoena at issue to Express Scripts, Inc. 

(Express Scripts), a non-party in the Arizona Arbitration. In the matter now before the 

Court, HMC are the Petitioners. Express Scripts, as the Respondent, has submitted a 

Response in opposition to HMC’s request seeking enforcement of Subpoena (Doc. 18, 

Resp.), to which HMC filed a Reply (Doc. 20). 

 

1

 The Court refers to Vividus, LLC, formerly known as HM Compounding Services, LLC, and HMX Services, LLC, doing business as HM Compounding, collectively as “HMC.” 

Case 2:15-mc-00093-JJT Document 21 Filed 06/13/16 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

I. BACKGROUND 

 In 2014, HMC filed an action against Express Scripts, CVS/Caremark, and other 

pharmacy benefit managers in New York state court, which Defendants removed to the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The court ordered that 

HMC’s claims against CVS/Caremark be submitted to arbitration pursuant to HMC’s 

contract with CVS/Caremark, which became the Arizona Arbitration, and HMC’s claims 

against Express Scripts be severed and transferred to the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of Missouri in accordance with HMC’s contract with Express Scripts. 

 In the HMC and Express Scripts action in the Eastern District of Missouri, the 

parties stipulated to a protective order that the court entered. Under the protective order, 

both parties may designate materials as “Confidential” under certain circumstances. 

Confidential information may only be disclosed to the issuing court, the parties and their 

attorneys, and other parties involved in that litigation. 

 In the Arizona Arbitration, the arbitration panel issued the Subpoena at issue to 

Express Scripts on December 14, 2015. The Subpoena requires that Express Scripts 

produce “[a]ny and all documents produced or to be produced in response to Plaintiffs 

HM Compounding Services, LLC and HMX Services, LLC’s First Request for 

Production of Documents Directed to Defendant Express Scripts, Inc. [in the Eastern 

District of Missouri litigation] dated September 4, 2015.” (Pet. 1-4 at 1.) The Subpoena 

requires that the documents be produced for inspection by HMC’s counsel at its offices in 

Miami, Florida. 

 HMC now petitions this Court to order Express Scripts to respond to the Subpoena 

by “produc[ing] the documents or assert[ing] whatever legal objections it may have” 

before this Court. (Pet. at 4.) The Court has jurisdiction over this matter because the 

arbitrators in the underlying matter sit within the United States District Court for the 

District of Arizona. See 9 U.S.C. § 7.2

 2

 “[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 

Case 2:15-mc-00093-JJT Document 21 Filed 06/13/16 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

II. ANALYSIS 

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides in part: 

The arbitrators selected either as prescribed in this title or otherwise, or a 

majority of them, may summon in writing any person to attend before them or any of them 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. 

9 U.S.C. § 7 (emphasis added). 

 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals does not appear to have addressed whether 

Section 7 of the FAA allows for an arbitrator to order a third/non-party to appear to 

testify and/or produce documents in conjunction with pre-trial/pre-hearing discovery. See 

Golden State Bank v. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co., No. EDCV 10-526-GW (OPX), 

2011 WL 13047425, at *5 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2011). Other federal courts that have 

considered the issue disagree as to whether arbitrators have such authority. The Second 

and Third Circuits have held that the FAA does not grant an arbitrator authority to order 

non-parties to appear at depositions or provide the litigating parties with documents 

during pre-hearing discovery. Life Receivables Trust v. Syndicate 102 at Lloyd’s of 

London, 549 F.3d 210, 216–17 (2d Cir. 2008); Hay Grp., Inc. v. E.B.S. Acquisition Corp., 

360 F.3d 404, 410 (3rd Cir. 2004). The Fourth Circuit has noted that an arbitrator may be 

able to subpoena a non-party for pre-hearing discovery “under unusual circumstances” 

and “upon a showing of special need or hardship.” COMSAT Corp. v. Nat’l Sci. Found., 

190 F.3d 269, 275–76 (4th Cir. 1999). Finally, the Sixth and Eighth Circuits have held 

that implicit in the FAA’s provision allowing an arbitrator to compel the production of 

documents for purposes of the hearing is the authority to compel such for inspection by a 

party prior to the hearing. In re Sec. Life Inc. Co., 228 F.3d 865, 870–71 (8th Cir. 2000);

Am. Fed’n of Television & Radio Artists, AFL-CIO v. WJBK-TV (New World Commc’ns 

of Detroit, Inc.), 164 F.3d 1004, 1009 (6th Cir. 1999). 

 “The preeminent canon of statutory interpretation requires us to presume that the 

 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.” 9 U.S.C. 

§ 7. 

Case 2:15-mc-00093-JJT Document 21 Filed 06/13/16 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” 

BedRoc Ltd., LLC v. United States, 541 U.S. 176, 183 (2004) (internal quotations 

omitted). “Thus, our inquiry begins with the statutory text, and ends there as well if the 

text is unambiguous.” Id.; see also U.S. ex rel. Hartpence v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 792 

F.3d 1121, 1128 (9th Cir. 2015). Section 7 of the FAA provides an arbitrator authority to 

summon “any person to attend before them or any of them as a witness and in a proper 

case to bring with him or them” any material evidence in the case. While the statute 

unambiguously gives an arbitrator authority to compel a non-party to provide document 

discovery during a hearing, it does not mention pre-hearing discovery. It also does not 

state that an arbitrator may compel discovery outside the presence of an arbitrator. The 

plain terms of the statute restrict an arbitrator’s subpoena power to situations where the 

non-party has been called to appear in the physical presence of the arbitrators and provide 

the relevant documents at that time. Hay, 360 F.3d at 407. In the absence of Ninth Circuit 

case law expanding the apparent scope of Section 7 of the FAA, the Court follows the 

plain language of the statute and finds that the arbitrator cannot compel a non-party to 

provide pre-hearing document discovery outside the presence of an arbitrator. See 9 

U.S.C. § 7; Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 792 F.3d at 1128. Accordingly, the Subpoena at issue 

is at odds with Section 7 of the FAA, and the Court will not enforce the Subpoena. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED denying Vividus LLC and HMX Services 

LLC’s petition seeking enforcement of the Subpoena (Doc. 1).

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to close this matter. 

 Dated this 13th day of June, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-mc-00093-JJT Document 21 Filed 06/13/16 Page 4 of 4