main image

Posts Tagged ‘Video Conference’

Henry Schein Case: CPR Interviews Loree and Faulkner on Supreme Court’s Grant of Certiorari

June 24th, 2020 Arbitrability, Arbitration Agreements, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Arbitration Provider Rules, Arbitration Providers, Authority of Arbitrators, FAA Chapter 1, Federal Arbitration Act Section 2, International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR), United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, United States Supreme Court Comments Off on Henry Schein Case: CPR Interviews Loree and Faulkner on Supreme Court’s Grant of Certiorari
Henry Schein | Supreme Court | Cert. Granted
Steps and columns on the portico of the United States Supreme Court in Washington, DC.

On Monday, June 15, 2020 the International Institute of Conflict Protection and Resolution (“CPR”) interviewed our good friend and colleague Richard D. Faulkner and Loree & Loree partner Philip J. Loree Jr. about the U.S. Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc., No. 19-963. To watch and listen to the video-conference interview, CLICK HERE.

The petition for and grant of certiorari arose out of the Fifth Circuit’s remand decision from the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer & White Sales Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524 (2019) (available at https://bit.ly/2CXAgPw) (“Schein I”).

If you’ve been following our posts about the Schein I and the remand decision, Archer and White Sales Inc. v. Henry Schein Inc., 935 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 2019) (available at http://bit.ly/2P9FGMU) (“Schein II”), then you know that the arbitration proponent, Henry Schein, Inc. (“Schein”), petitioned for rehearing en banc of Schein II in fall 2019. (See here, herehere, and here.) In October 2019, while the petition for rehearing en banc was pending, Philip J. Loree Jr. published in Alternatives an article entitled “Back to Scotus’s Schein: A Separability Analysis that Resolves the Problem with the Fifth Circuit Remand,” 37 Alternatives 131 (October 2019).

The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc on December 6, 2019. But Schein, a Melville, N.Y.-based dental equipment distributor, filed on January 30, 2020 a petition for certiorari, which asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s Schein II ruling.

The Petition asks the U.S. Supreme Court to determine “[w]hether a provision in an arbitration agreement that exempts certain claims from arbitration negates an otherwise clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator.” (Petition at I)

We wrote about the Petition in a post CPR Speaks, CPR’s blog, published on February 19, 2020, which was entitled “Schein Returns: Scotus’s Arbitration Remand Is Now Back at the Court.” And we also published in the April 2020 issue of CPR Alternatives an article about the Petition, which was entitled “Schein’s Remand Decision Goes Back to the Supreme Court. What’s Next?,” 38 Alternatives 54 (April 2020) (the “April 2020 Alternatives Article”). 

As noted in the April 2020 Alternatives Article, Schein’s filing of the petition for certiorari prompted Archer & White Sales Inc. (“Respondent” or “Archer & White”), a Plano, Texas, distributor, seller, and servicer of dental equipment, to file a conditional cross-petition (the “Cross Petition”), which in the event the Court granted the Petition asked the Court to determine “[w]hether the parties clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability by incorporating the AAA Rules into their contract.”

The Cross-Petition ultimately prompted Rick Faulkner and Phil Loree Jr. to co-author a two-part article for Alternatives entitled “Schein’s Remand Decision: Should Scotus Review the Provider Rule Incorporation-by-Reference Issue?” Part I was published in the May 2020 issue of Alternatives. Part II was published in the June 2020 issue.

The two-part article argued that, if the Court granted the Petition, it should also grant the Cross-Petition, and address the issue whether the parties, by agreeing to arbitrate “in accordance with” the American Arbitration Assocation’s Commercial Arbitration Rules, clearly and unmistakably agreed to arbitrate arbitrability issues.

But as it turned out, the Court granted the Petition, but denied the Cross-Petition, one of the issues addressed in the interview.

Our good friend Russ Bleemer, Editor of Alternatives, conducted the interview, and did a great job editing the articles Rick and I wrote about Schein for Alternatives. He also wrote for the CPR Speaks Blog an excellent summary of where things stand in light of the Court’s grant of the Petition. The video of the interview is embedded into that blog post. You can request copies of the articles Rick and Phil wrote about Schein by emailing CPR at alternatives@cpradr.org.  

We also shout-out CPR’s Tania Zamorsky, who, among other things, is the blog master of CPR Speaks, and who coordinated the effort to share copies of the video on CPR’s social media outlets.

Photo Acknowledgment

The photo featured in this post was licensed from Yay Images and is subject to copyright protection under applicable law.

MCA Group, Video Conference Hearings, and COVID-19 | Federal Arbitration Act Section 7 Part III | Businessperson’s Federal Arbitration Act FAQ Guide

May 19th, 2020 Arbitral Subpoenas, Arbitration and Mediation FAQs, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Businessperson's FAQ Guide to the Federal Arbitration Act, COVID-19 Considerations, FAA Chapter 1, Federal Arbitration Act Section 7, Nuts & Bolts, Nuts & Bolts: Arbitration, Practice and Procedure, Pre-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Section 7, Subpoenas, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Video Conference Hearings Comments Off on MCA Group, Video Conference Hearings, and COVID-19 | Federal Arbitration Act Section 7 Part III | Businessperson’s Federal Arbitration Act FAQ Guide
MCA Group | Arbitral Subpoenas

The last instalment of the Businessperson’s Federal Arbitration Act FAQ Guide discussed whether under Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act arbitrators can issue an enforceable subpoena that purports to allow a witness to appear at a hearing via video conference or teleconference. It explained that the answer, at least according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Managed Care Advisory Grp. v. CIGNA Healthcare, 939 F.3d 1145, 1158-61 (11th Cir. 2019) (“MCA Group”), is “no.”

In light of COVID-19 restrictions, in-person hearings are unlawful in certain jurisdictions, or at least contrary to government-issued medical guidance. As a practical matter that means the rule espoused by MCA Group would render unenforceable under Section 7 any arbitral subpoena seeking documents or testimony from a third party. Parties and non-parties may agree to comply with subpoenas authorizing video conference appearances, but those subpoenas cannot, under the reasoning of MCA Group, be enforced by courts under Federal Arbitration Act Section 7.

This instalment addresses the question whether other courts are likely to follow MCA Group, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Will Courts follow the 11th Circuit MCA Group Decision in Light of the COVID-19 Crisis?

Continue Reading »

Compelling Video Conference Testimony | Arbitral Subpoenas |Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act Part II | Businessperson’s Federal Arbitration Act FAQ Guide

May 18th, 2020 Arbitral Subpoenas, Arbitration and Mediation FAQs, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, COVID-19 Considerations, FAA Chapter 1, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 7, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Nuts & Bolts: Arbitration, Section 7, Small Business B-2-B Arbitration, Subpoenas, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Video Conference Hearings 3 Comments »
video conference

Whether a Court can compel enforcement of an arbitral subpoena that commands a witness to appear at a hearing by video conference is a critical one, particularly in view of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The last instalment of this Businessperson’s Federal Arbitration Act FAQ Guide addressed a couple of key questions concerning Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act, which authorizes judicial enforcement of arbitral subpoenas that require non-party witnesses to attend and produce documents at arbitration  hearings. That instalment explained, among other things, how Section 7, construed together with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c), authorize court enforcement of an arbitral subpoena that “command[s] a person to attend” a “hearing,” but “only if”: (a) “the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person[]” “within 100 miles” of the hearing. . . ; or (b) the. . . hearing is “within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person,” and then only if the person “is a party or a party’s officer[,]” or “is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c); see 9 U.S.C. § 7.

That means that courts cannot enforce arbitral subpoenas that purport to compel witnesses outside the territorial boundaries of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c) to testify and produce documents at a hearing. And the majority of courts have ruled that Section 7 does not authorize arbitrators to issue judicially-enforceable document or deposition subpoenas, something that federal district courts can do in federal court litigation. (See here.)

But these days—as the COVID-19 pandemic changes the way we interact on a day-to-day basis—whether arbitrators can issue subpoenas requiring persons to appear for a video- or teleconference in lieu of a hearing is an important question, irrespective of whether those witnesses could be compelled to appear in person before the arbitrators under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c). To that question we now turn.

Continue Reading »