Opinion ID: 653166
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: knapp's status as a percipient witness

Text: 33 The district court found that NAT misrepresented to the court the status of Randy Knapp, its party-appointed arbitrator. According to the court, NAT represented that Knapp was a mere compiler of arbitration exhibit 546 when in fact he was a decision maker involved with UTILIS, the key product at issue in the arbitration. AT & T asserts that NAT intentionally misrepresented to the court that Knapp was not a percipient witness to the events leading up to the arbitration. 34 Knapp disclosed his relationship with Wespercorp (the predecessor to United Computer Systems, Inc.) and his participation in the preparation of exhibit 546. Nothing in his disclosure was false or misleading. In fact, immediately after Knapp disclosed his role in the preparation of exhibit 546, counsel for AT & T argued to the arbitration panel that Knapp had just stated that he was a percipient witness for the preparation of Exhibit 546, which is essentially the forecast of UTILIS sales, which is the issue before the panel in this hearing today. Yet somehow AT & T convinced the district court that Knapp successfully hid his status as a percipient witness both from AT & T and from the district court. 35 The evidence presented by AT & T in support of its successful motion to vacate the confirmation award consists of two depositions of Knapp, both of which were conducted in November 1985 in connection with litigation unrelated to this case. Despite AT & T's arguments to the contrary, neither deposition indicates that Knapp was a percipient witness to the events surrounding the 1986 License Agreement or its alleged breach by AT & T. The court's finding of fraud is erroneous. 36 Even if the district court's finding of fraud could be sustained, its finding of reasonable diligence by AT & T is clearly erroneous. The only evidence produced by AT & T in support of its argument that NAT hid Knapp's status from the court and AT & T are the two 1985 depositions. The record contains nothing that would explain or excuse the failure of AT & T to discover those depositions in advance of the confirmation proceedings or, for that matter, during the arbitration itself. 37 The district court abused its discretion in granting Rule 60(b)(3) relief from its prior judgment confirming the arbitration award. Because the confirmation order was not obtained by fraud, the district court erred in vacating the underlying arbitration award. We vacate the district court's orders vacating the arbitration award and vacating the confirmation.