Opinion ID: 1949615
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bolton's Evidentiary Challenges

Text: Bolton argues that the ACAB arbitrators made two erroneous evidentiary rulings that warrant vacation of the award under § 16-4311(a)(4). First, she contests ACAB's direction that, when appearing as a witness in her own case, she must actually testify, rather than simply read a fifteen-page prepared statement. Second, she argues that ACAB's refus[al] to accept [a piece of] documentary evidence was a procedural error. In making these related arguments, Bolton misapprehends the scope of our review. Conducting the intensive review that Bolton suggests would force us to superintend [the] arbitration proceedings. Tempo Shain Corp. v. Bertek, Inc., 120 F.3d 16, 20 (2d Cir.1997) (discussing the limits of review where a party claims the arbitrator refus[ed] to hear evidence pertinent or material to the controversy). [5] But we are neither required nor authorized to comb the record for technical errors in the receipt or rejection of evidence by arbitrators. . . . Newark Stereotypers' Union No. 18 v. Newark Morning Ledger Co., 397 F.2d 594, 599 (3d Cir.1968). Rather, [o]ur review is restricted to determining whether the procedure was fundamentally unfair. Tempo Shain Corp., 120 F.3d at 20. See id. ([E]xcept where fundamental fairness is violated, arbitration determinations will not be opened up to evidentiary review.) Because an arbitrator is not required to hear all the evidence proffered by a party, we only evaluate whether the arbitrator `[gave] each of the parties to the dispute an adequate opportunity to present its evidence and argument.' Id. (internal citation omitted). See Lessin v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 375 U.S.App. D.C. 317, 322, 481 F.3d 813, 818 (2007) (`[e]very failure of an arbitrator to receive relevant evidence does not constitute misconduct requiring vacatur of an arbitrator's award.') (quoting Hoteles Condado Beach, La Concha & Convention Ctr. v. Union De Tronquistas Local 901, 763 F.2d 34, 40 (1st Cir.1985)). Bolton has failed to demonstrate that ACAB's rulings violated fundamental fairness or that she suffered prejudice of a magnitude that would warrant vacatur. Bolton was represented by a lawyer at the arbitration hearing and she had ample opportunity to present her case through testimonial and documentary evidence. Bolton has not established that her testimony differed materially from the prepared statement, and she has only pointed to one piece of evidence that ACAB refused to consider, a letter from herself to B & K, dated March 22, 1999. In short, we do not attempt to review ACAB's evidentiary rulings because Bolton has not persuaded us that (even assuming those rulings were, in some sense, erroneous) they deprived her of a fundamentally fair hearing.