## Facts

- Oceanic Transport Corporation of Monrovia and Transatlantica Financiers Industriale, S.A. (owners/time-chartered owner of the S.S. *General Artigas*) were in a charter-party dispute with Alcoa Steamship Company, Inc. (charterer) subject to contractual arbitration.
- During the arbitration, the arbitrators issued a subpoena to a nonparty witness, the American Bureau of Shipping, seeking testimony and documents concerning the vessel.
- The nonparty informed the parties it would not comply with the arbitral subpoena unless ordered to do so by the district court.
- Applications were made to the district court to (i) punish the nonparty for contempt for noncompliance and (ii) compel the nonparty’s attendance and production under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

## Issues

1. Whether a nonparty witness should be held in contempt for not complying with an arbitral subpoena when it stated it would appear only if directed by the court.
2. Whether the FAA permits enforcement of the arbitral subpoena on this record—i.e., whether the requesting party showed a “proper case,” including that the requested evidence was material and relevant to the arbitration.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to punish the nonparty witness for contempt.
- The court held the requesting party failed to show the subpoenaed testimony and documents were material or relevant to the arbitration.
- The court concluded this was not a “proper case” for issuance and enforcement of the subpoena under the FAA.
- The court granted the motion to vacate the subpoena.

## Legal Principles

- Under the FAA, a district court has an independent duty to determine whether enforcing an arbitral subpoena is a “proper case,” including whether the evidence sought is material.
- The party seeking court enforcement bears the burden to demonstrate materiality and relevance of the requested nonparty evidence.
- Arbitrators’ views that requested evidence may be material are entitled to respect but do not control the court’s statutory determination whether enforcement is justified.
- Absent an adequate factual showing of materiality, a court may decline to compel nonparty compliance and may vacate the arbitral subpoena.

## Conclusion

The district court refused to enforce an arbitral subpoena against a nonparty and declined to impose contempt sanctions because the proponent did not establish that the requested testimony and documents were material to the arbitration, making enforcement under the FAA unwarranted.


Oceanic Transp. Corp. of Monrovia v. Alcoa S.S. Co., 129 F. Supp. 160 (S.D.N.Y. 1954)