Tang Energy vs Catic USA

Filing 8

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA ISSUED BY ARBITRATION PANEL. The court denies the motion to quash without prejudice because (1) this does not appear to be the proper forum, (2) under the procedural rules in the Federal Arb itration Act, Tang Energy must move to enforce its subpoena in the district where the arbitrators are sitting, and (3) if Tang Energy moves to enforce its subpoena, then Mr. Chao can challenge it. The Clerk of the Court shall close the file. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 8/6/2015. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
In the Matter of the Arbitration between

12

Case No. 3:15-mc-80209-LB

TANG ENERGY GROUP, LTD, et al.

13

Claimants,
14
v.
15
CATIC U.S.A., et al.,

16

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION TO QUASH
SUBPOENA ISSUED BY
ARBITRATION PANEL
[Re: ECF Nos. 1]

Defendants.

17
18

INTRODUCTION

19

On July 23, 2015, in an arbitration pending in Dallas, Texas, claimant Tang Energy Group

20

submitted a witness list that included non-party Cedric Chao. (Chao Decl., ECF No. 1-1, ¶ 17 &

21

Ex. C.1). Mr. Chao represents two companies named as respondents in the arbitration, Aviation

22

Industry Corporation of China (“AVIC”) and China Aviation Industry General Aircraft Co., Ltd.;

23

according to Mr. Chao, they are not signatories to the arbitration agreement and have objected to

24

their inclusion in the arbitration. (Id. ¶¶ 10-12.) Tang Energy Group’s counsel Robert Jenevein

25

applied to the arbitration panel for, and the panel issued, a subpoena for Mr. Chao’s testimony

26

before the panel in Dallas, Texas, on August 10, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. (Id. ¶ 18.).

27
1

28

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page
numbers at the tops of the documents.
ORDER (No. 3:15-mc-80209-LB)

On August 4, 2015, Mr. Chao filed in this court a motion to quash the subpoena on grounds

2

that include (1) the subpoena was not served properly and also directs an appearance more than

3

100 miles away from Mr. Chao’s principal place of business, in violation of Fed. R. Civ. P.

4

45(c)(1)(A) and 45(d)(3)(A)(ii), and (2) the subpoena improperly calls for information that is

5

either attorney-client privileged or attorney work product. (Motion, ECF No. 1, at 3, 16-27.) After

6

the court ordered expedited briefing (see 8/4/15 Order, ECF No. 4), Tang Energy responded to the

7

motion, explaining that it is not seeking privileged information and instead is trying to prove that

8

AVIC International USA, Inc. (“AVIC USA”) is the alter ego of AVIC (represented by Mr. Chao).

9

(Joint Letter Brief, ECF No. 6 at 2.) It is seeking Mr. Chao’s testimony “to confirm that he was at

10

least the primary contributor to an appellate brief filed by . . . AVIC USA[], an entity represented

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

by Arent Fox and which Mr. Chao says that he does not represent.” (Id. at 4.) It also argues that

12

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply; instead, the appropriate procedural rules are

13

those in the Federal Arbitration Act. (Id. at 3.)
The court finds that this matter is suitable for determination without oral argument under Civil

14
15

Local Rule 7-1(b). The court denies the motion to quash without prejudice because (1) this does

16

not appear to be the proper forum, (2) under the procedural rules in the Federal Arbitration Act,

17

Tang Energy must move to enforce its subpoena in the district where the arbitrators are sitting, and

18

(3) if Tang Energy moves to enforce its subpoena, then Mr. Chao can challenge it.

19

ANALYSIS

20

The parties agree that the underlying arbitration is subject to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9

21

U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.2 (See Motion, ECF No. 1 at 15; Joint Letter Brief, ECF No. 6 at 3.) “The

22

subpoena powers of an arbitrator are limited to those created by the express provisions of the

23

[Federal Arbitration Act].” COMSAT Corp. v. Nat’l Science Found., 190 F.3d 269, 275 (4th Cir.

24

1999). The provision of the FAA providing those powers, 9 U.S.C. § 7, states in relevant part:

25
2

26
27
28

Mr. Chao asserts that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter because the
underlying arbitration “falls under” the New York Convention on the Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which is implemented through Chapter Two of the
FAA, 9 U.S.C. §§ 201-208. 9 U.S.C. § 203, in turn, provides that “[a]n action or proceeding
falling under the Convention shall be deemed to arise under the laws and treaties of the United
States,” thus providing this court with jurisdiction.
2
ORDER (No. 3:15-mc-80209-LB)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

The arbitrators . . . may summon in writing any person to attend before them or any
of them as a witness and in a proper case to bring with him or them any book,
record, document, or paper which may be deemed material as evidence in the case. .
. . Said summons shall issue in the name of the arbitrator or arbitrators, or a
majority of them, and shall be signed by the arbitrators, or a majority of them, and
shall be directed to the said person and shall be served in the same manner as
subpoenas to appear and testify before the court; if any person or persons so
summoned to testify shall refuse or neglect to obey said summons, upon petition the
United States district court for the district in which such arbitrators, or a majority of
them, are sitting may compel the attendance of such person or persons before said
arbitrator or arbitrators, or punish said person or persons for contempt in the same
manner provided by law for securing the attendance of witnesses or their
punishment for neglect or refusal to attend in the courts of the United States.
(Emphasis added.)
The plain language of 9 U.S.C. § 7 requires that a person who wants a subpoena issued by
arbitrators to be enforced do so by filing a petition the district court in which the arbitrators are

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

sitting. Numerous courts have recognized this requirement. See, e.g., Dynegy Midstream Servs. v.

12

Trammochem, 451 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir. 2006) (“FAA Section 7 provides that subpoenas issued

13

under that section may be enforced by petition to ‘the United States district court for the district in

14

which such arbitrators, or a majority of them, are sitting.’ 9 U.S.C. § 7. Here, the arbitrators were

15

sitting in the Southern District of New York, so FAA Section 7 required that any enforcement

16

action be brought there.”); Alliance Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Argonaut Private Equity, LLC, 804

17

F. Supp. 2d 808, 811-12 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (“Because the arbitration proceeding is being conducted

18

in Chicago, only a court in this district [the United States District Court for the Northern District

19

of Illinois] may enforce a subpoena issued by the arbitrators.”); Amgen Inc. v. Kidney Ctr. of

20

Delaware County, Ltd., 879 F. Supp. 878, 881 (N.D. Ill. 1995) (9 U.S.C. § 7 made clear “that any

21

petition to enforce the subpoena must be brought to this court, because the arbitrator is located in

22

Chicago”); Amgen Inc. v. Kidney Ctr. of Delaware County, Ltd., Civ. A. No. 94-MC-0202, 1994

23

WL 594372, at *1-2 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 20, 1994) (“Since the arbitrator in the underlying arbitration is

24

sitting in Chicago, it was incumbent upon Amgen, pursuant to the plain language of Section 7 of

25

the Federal Arbitration Act, to bring its petition to compel compliance in the United States District

26

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,” not in the United States District Court for the Eastern

27

District of Pennsylvania, as it did.); see also Martin Domke, Gabriel Wilner & Larry E.

28

Edmonson, 2 Domke on Commercial Arbitration § 29.12 (3d ed. 2015) (“A petition to enforce
3
ORDER (No. 3:15-mc-80209-LB)

1

subpoenas issued by arbitrators must be brought in the district in which such arbitrators are

2

sitting.”)

3
4
5

9 U.S.C. § 7 says nothing about a person to whom a subpoena is directed being required to file
a motion to quash. Indeed, as the Fourth Circuit has explained:

8

. . . [O]nce subpoenaed by an arbitrator the recipient is under no obligation to move
to quash the subpoena. By failing to do so, the recipient does not waive the right to
challenge the subpoena on the merits if faced with a petition to compel. The FAA
imposes no requirement that a subpoenaed party file a petition to quash or otherwise
challenge the subpoena; the Act’s only mechanism for obtaining federal court
review is the petition to compel. See 9 U.S.C.A. § 7 (“[U]pon petition the . . .
district court . . . may compel the attendance of such person.”).

9

COMSAT, 190 F.3d at 276 (footnote omitted); see also Thomas H. Oehmke & Joan M. Brovins, 3

10

Commercial Arbitration § 90.3 (2015) (citing COMSAT for this point). At least one district court

11

has come to the same conclusion. See Odfjell Asa v. Celanese AG, 348 F. Supp. 2d 283, 288

12

(S.D.N.Y. 2004) (Rakoff, J.) (“While Stolt-Nielsen undoubtedly has standing to object in a proper

13

forum to O’Brien’s giving of testimony or providing of documents as to which Stolt-Nielsen

14

claims privilege, there is considerable doubt in this Court’s mind that this is the proper forum, at

15

least at this juncture, since the FAA nowhere explicitly gives a person subpoenaed to an

16

arbitration the right to move in a federal district court to quash the subpoena.”) (footnote omitted).

17

It is perhaps not surprising, then, that the court has found no instances where, upon the petition of

18

a subpoena recipient, a district court has quashed a subpoena issued by arbitrators, let alone one

19

issued by arbitrators sitting in a different district.

6

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

20

In light of these authorities, the court cannot conclude that the Northern District of California

21

is the proper forum to address Mr. Chao’s challenge to the subpoena. See id. The court thus denies

22

the motion to quash without prejudice. If Tang Energy Group files a petition to enforce the

23

arbitrators’ subpoena, Mr. Chao may challenge the enforcement of the subpoena at that time and

24

raise the issues he raises here.
CONCLUSION

25
26

The court denies the motion to quash without prejudice. The court previously granted Mr.

27

Chao’s motion to hear his motion to quash on shortened time by ordering an expedited briefing

28

process. (8/4/15 Order, ECF No. 48 at 2.)
4
ORDER (No. 3:15-mc-80209-LB)

1

This disposes of ECF Nos. 1 and 2. The Clerk of the Court shall close the file.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

Dated: August 6, 2015

4

______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
ORDER (No. 3:15-mc-80209-LB)