Date: 05-25-2006

Case Style: Daniel L. Berglund v. Arthroscopic & Laser Surgery Center of San Diego, L.P.

Case Number: D045218

Judge: McDonald

Court: Unknown

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Law Office of Marc O. Stern and Marc Stern for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant's Attorney:

Higgs, Fletcher & Mack, John Morris, William A. Miller and Michael S. Faircloth for Defendant and Appellant.

Description: Daniel L. Berglund, in the arbitral forum, subpoenaed documents from nonparty Arthroscopic & Laser Surgery Center, L.P. (ALSC). The arbitrator ordered ALSC to produce the documents for his in camera review. ALSC brought a motion for a protective order in the superior court, which ruled it did not have jurisdiction to review the arbitrator's discovery order because the arbitrator had exclusive authority over the discovery dispute. ALSC appeals, contending the arbitrator was not authorized to enforce a discovery subpoena against it, as a nonparty to the arbitration agreement, and the court was required to exercise jurisdiction over its motion. Code of Civil Procedure sections 1283.1 and 1283.051 grant arbitrators authority to enforce discovery subpoenas even against nonparties in cases involving personal injury or death, but the trial court has jurisdiction to review the arbitrator's discovery ruling.

An additional issue is whether judicial review of an arbitrator's discovery decisions addressed to nonparties to an arbitration agreement is limited to the same extent as discovery decisions addressed to parties to an arbitration agreement. Courts have held that parties to an arbitration agreement may not, except on severely circumscribed grounds, challenge arbitral decisions in judicial proceedings. This strict limitation on judicial review of arbitral decisions is based on the consideration that parties to an arbitration agreement expect, in return for foregoing their right to full judicial review, they will receive a prompt and final disposition of their disputes. However, the severe limitation on judicial review of arbitral decisions may only be imposed on those who have voluntarily agreed to have their disputes arbitrated or who have some relationship with one of the parties to the arbitration agreement. (§ 1283.05, subd. (d).)

In general, under section 1283.05, subdivision (c) parties to an arbitration agreement are bound by an arbitrator's discovery decisions to the same extent they are bound by the arbitrator's disposition of the merits of their dispute. When made under the provisions of section 1283.05, an arbitrator's discovery order addressed to parties to an arbitration agreement is subject to the same limited judicial review and will not be overturned even if on its face the order is erroneous and causes substantial injustice.

However, section 1283.05, subdivision (c) does not limit judicial review of arbitrators' discovery orders addressed to persons not parties to the arbitration and not otherwise aligned with the parties. Nonparties to the arbitration may seek judicial review of an arbitrator's discovery orders without the review limitations imposed on discovery orders addressed to parties.

Click the case caption above for the full text of this opinion.

Outcome: The order appealed is reversed and the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed in this opinion.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: None