In a highly debated arena of California law, questions surrounding the ability of arbitrators to order third party discovery in the process of arbitration have emerged. More specifically, whether an arbitrator can issue a “third-party subpoena”. A recent piece by JAMS elucidates this concept by defining it as any subpoena issued during a proceeding to someone who is not a plaintiff, defendant or intervenor in the lawsuit, or, in the context of an arbitration, someone who is not a claimant or respondent. This includes eyewitnesses and custodians of records for organizations.
California’s Civil Discovery Act provides a crucial framework for such legal procedures. According to the Act, parties are authorized to gather evidence from a third party through three distinct methods: oral deposition, written deposition, and production of documents and things.
While this topic is a source of frequent legal contention, it is important to consider its implications, particularly for arbitrators, as they grapple with complex cases involving multiple parties. The debate underlines the balance that needs to be struck between securing evidence for a thorough arbitral process and preserving the rights of third parties whose involvement is ancillary to the main litigation.
As California continues to be a hub for major corporations and law firms, this topic is of particular importance to the legal professionals engaged in arbitration processes. Whether arbitrators can order third party discovery will have significant bearings on fact-finding procedures and, consequently, outcomes of disputes. It remains critical to monitor this subject in legal updates and interpret judgments accounting for nuances in the arbitration process.