## Facts

- Amgen Inc. was engaged in an arbitration in Chicago against Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. concerning rights related to erythropoietin (EPO).
- The arbitrator determined that certain documents and testimony held by Kidney Center of Delaware County, Ltd. (KCDC), a nonparty Pennsylvania dialysis provider, were relevant to the arbitration.
- The arbitrator issued a subpoena requiring KCDC to provide deposition testimony and produce documents.
- KCDC objected before the arbitrator, and the arbitrator overruled the objections and ordered compliance.
- KCDC continued to refuse compliance, prompting Amgen to seek judicial enforcement of the arbitral subpoena.
- After procedural maneuvering between federal districts, Amgen pursued enforcement in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

## Issues

1. Whether FAA § 7 authorizes enforcement of an arbitrator’s subpoena for testimony and documents directed to a nonparty located outside the district where the arbitration is seated.
2. Whether the territorial limits in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 constrain an arbitrator’s subpoena power so as to bar enforcement of a subpoena served on an out-of-district nonparty.

## Decision

- The court granted Amgen’s motion to compel and enforced the arbitrator’s subpoena against KCDC.
- The court held that FAA § 7 provides arbitrators power to summon witnesses and documents and authorizes federal courts to compel compliance when a witness refuses.
- The court rejected KCDC’s argument that Rule 45’s geographic limits categorically prevent enforcement merely because the nonparty and records were located outside the arbitral district.
- The court ordered production subject to appropriate protective conditions to address nonparty confidentiality and burden concerns.

## Legal Principles

- FAA § 7 authorizes arbitrators to summon any person to appear as a witness and, in a proper case, to bring documents deemed material; federal district courts may compel compliance upon petition when the witness refuses.
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45’s territorial limits do not automatically invalidate an arbitral subpoena; those limits are addressed through the court’s enforcement authority rather than by treating the arbitrator’s location as dispositive.
- Courts may enforce arbitral subpoenas in a manner consistent with Rule 45 while preserving the practical effectiveness of arbitration as a fact-finding process.
- When compelling a nonparty, a court may condition enforcement on a protective order or other limits to reduce burden and safeguard confidential information.

## Conclusion

The court enforced an FAA § 7 arbitral subpoena against a nonparty and compelled document production and testimony, concluding that Rule 45’s territorial restrictions do not categorically bar enforcement and may be accommodated through judicial enforcement procedures and protective conditions.


Amgen Inc. v. Kidney Ctr. of Del. Cnty., Ltd., 879 F. Supp. 878 (N.D. Ill. 1995)