Opinion ID: 857425
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Borst Certification

Text: ¶89 In the Borst case, the court of appeals certified three questions including the following: Other than the deposition procedure outlined in Wis. Stat. § 788.07, is the nature and extent of discovery during the arbitration process governed by contract, the arbitrators' inherent authority, or a combination of the two? Borst, 291 Wis. 2d 361, ¶2. The Borst court summarized its answer as follows: Arbitrators have no inherent authority to dictate the scope of discovery, and absent an express agreement, the parties are limited to the procedure for depositions, as described in Wis. Stat. § 788.07. Id., ¶3. ¶90 The question posed in the Borst certification was provocative because of its reference to the inherent authority of arbitrators. In Lukowski, the court had declared that [a]n arbitrator obtains authority only from the contract of the parties and therefore is confined to the interpretation of that contract. Lukowski, 184 Wis. 2d at 152; see also Nicolet High Sch. Dist. v. Nicolet Educ. Ass'n, 118 Wis. 2d 707, 714, 348 N.W.2d 175 (1984); Milwaukee Prof'l Firefighters, Local 215 v. City of Milwaukee, 78 Wis. 2d 1, 21, 253 N.W.2d 481 (1977). Thus, the certified question posited an option that this court had rejected repeatedly. ¶91 The certified question appears to have diverted the court's attention from the possibility that the arbitration statutes themselves provide authority for other discovery, and 6 No. 2011AP2067.dtp led to the court's creation of non-statutory obstacles for arbitrators in construing contracts that provide for arbitration. These conclusions are admittedly much clearer to me in hindsight than they were when I joined the Borst opinion in 2006. They require explanation.