Hay Group Inc. v. E.B.S. Acquisition Corp.
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
360 F.3d 404 (2004)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
David Hoffrichter was employed as a consultant at Hay Group Inc. (Hay) (plaintiff). Hoffrichter’s employment agreement contained a one-year nonsolicitation clause and an arbitration clause. After leaving Hay’s employment in 1999, Hoffrichter worked for PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and E.B.S. Acquisition Corp. (EBS) (defendants). In 2000, Hay initiated an arbitration in Philadelphia against Hoffrichter, alleging violation of the nonsolicitation agreement. In preparation for the arbitration hearing, Hay served subpoenas for documents on EBS and PwC for pre-hearing production at each company’s respective office in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. PwC and EBS, which were nonparties to the arbitration, objected to the subpoenas. Hay sought to enforce the subpoenas in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The district court enforced the subpoenas. PwC and EBS appealed, arguing that under § 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), arbitrators had no power to compel nonparties to produce documents prior to arbitration, i.e., separately from appearing at the arbitration. PwC and EBS further challenged the subpoenas on the ground that they requested documents produced outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alito, J.)
Concurrence (Chertoff, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
