United States District Court, D. Maryland
MEMORANDUM ORDER
RICHARD D. BENNETT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner
Darnell Robertson ("Robertson" or
"Petitioner") has initiated arbitration proceedings
against Credit Acceptance Corportation ("CAC"),
alleging that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. § 227, et
seq., by using an automatic telephone dialing system to
repeatedly call his cellular phone after he revoked his prior
consent to be called. (Pet. ¶ 8.) Robertson now appeals
to this Court[1] to enforce a subpoena duces tecum
issued by the arbitrator against a non-party to the
arbitration proceeding, T-Mobile US, Inc. D/B/A MetroPCS
("MetroPCS" or "Respondent"). Presently
pending is his Petition to Enforce Subpoena (ECF No. 1.) The
submissions have been reviewed, and no hearing is necessary.
See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2018). The Petition is
GRANTED as Petitioner has demonstrated that the information
sought is integral to his claim and otherwise unavailable
thus giving rise to a special need for the information.
BACKGROUND
On May
4, 2018, Darnell Robertson ("Petitioner") filed a
demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration
Association ("AAA") against Credit Acceptance
Corporation pursuant to an arbitration agreement (Pet. ¶
7, ECF No. 1.); (Pet. Ex. A, ECF No. 1-2.) Petitioner alleges
that Credit Acceptance Corporation violated die Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. § 227, et
seq., by using an automatic telephone dialing system to
repeatedly call his cellular phone after he revoked his prior
consent to be called. (Pet. ¶ 8.) In connection with
discovery efforts, Petitioner sought subcriber information
and incoming and outgoing phone calls from MetroPCS for a
period between October 1, 2016 and February 28, 2018. (Pet.
Ex. B, ECF No. 1-3.) Accordingly, the arbitrator issued a
subpoena ordering MetroPCS to produce these records.
Id. On November 4, 2018, MetroPCS indicated that it
would not comply with the subpoena, asserting that the
arbitrator did not have authority to order "pre-action
discovery from a non-party to the arbitration." (Pet.
Ex. C, ECF No, 1-4.) On September 5, 2019, Petitioner
initiated this action by filing a Petition to Enforce
Subpoena (ECF No. 1) in this Court.
ANALYSIS
Petitioner
seeks to enforce an arbitrator's subpoena for
"subscriber information and incoming and outgoing
telephone calls." (ECF No. 1-3.) The
Respondent[2] has refused to produce these records,
asserting that there is no statutory or other legal authority
requiring it to comply with the subpoena issued in an
arbitration proceeding to which it is not a party. (ECF No.
1-4.)
"The
subpoena powers of an arbitrator are limited to those created
by the express provisions of the [Federal Arbitration Act
("FAA")]." COMSAT Corp. v. Nat'l
Science Found., 190 F.3d 269, 275 (4th Cir. 1999).
Section 7 of the FAA authorizes arbitrators to "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." 9 U.S.C. § 7. The FAA
invests district courts with the authority to enforce the
arbitrator's subpoenas. Id. This authority is
not limitless. The court may only compel arbitration
discovery against a non-party under "unusual
circumstances" and only upon "a showing of special
need or hardship." COMSAT Corp., 190 F.3d at
276 (citing Burton v. Busb, F.2d 389, 391 (4th Cir.
1980)). At bottom, "a party must demonstrate that the
information it seeks is otherwise unavailable."
Id.
In this
case, Petitioner has satisfactorily demonstrated a special
need for the requested documents. Petitioner represents that
the requested phone records are essential his arbitration
claims. (Pet. ¶ 19.) He has also indicated that they are
"otherwise unavailable" because Credit Acceptance
Corporation does not maintain records of its outgoing calls.
(Id.) These uncontested representations suffice to
establish that unusual circumstances justify the enforcement
of the arbitration subpoena against a non-party. Accordingly,
the Petition is GRANTED.
CONCLUSION
For the
foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED this 1st day of
November 2019 that:
1. The
Petition (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED;
2.
Respondent, T-Mobile US, Inc. D/B/A MetroPCS shall produce
the documents identified in the arbitrator's subpoena
(ECF No. 1-3) within fifteen (15) days after being served
with an Order from this Court;
3. If
Respondent, T-Mobile US, Inc. D/B/A MetroPCS fails to timely
produce the requested documents, it may ...