Berglund v.Arthroscopic & Laser Surgery 5/22/06 CA4/1

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: D045218A

Case Date: 08/23/2006

Preview:Filed 5/22/06

Reposted to correct pagination and footnote numbering

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL L. BERGLUND, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARTHROSCOPIC & LASER SURGERY CENTER OF SAN DIEGO, LP, Defendant and Appellant.

D045218

(Super. Ct. No. GIC753465)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Linda B. Quinn, Judge. Reversed. Higgs, Fletcher & Mack, John Morris, William A. Miller and Michael S. Faircloth for Defendant and Appellant. Law Office of Marc O. Stern and Marc O. Stern for Plaintiff and Respondent.

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

1

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

1 All statutory references are to the Code Civil Procedure unless otherwise specified.

2

have voluntarily agreed to have their disputes arbitrated or who have some relationship with one of the parties to the arbitration agreement. (

Download Berglund v.Arthroscopic & Laser Surgery 5/22/06 CA4/1.pdf