McNamee v. indiGO San Francisco, LLC
- Alex Tse
- 3:21-cv-01688
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In McNamee v. INDIGO San Francisco, Judge Tse denied plaintiffs’ request to make particular discovery rules govern their arbitrations.
The ruling affects the nine plaintiffs and INDIGO San Francisco, LLC by leaving disputes about the applicable discovery rules to the arbitrator.
What happened
In McNamee v. INDIGO San Francisco, LLC, the case was stayed while nine arbitrations between INDIGO and the nine plaintiffs continued. The plaintiffs returned to court asking it to decide which discovery rules should apply.
The plaintiffs argued that the arbitrations should use the discovery rules of JAMS, an arbitration organization. INDIGO argued that the court had no basis to impose those rules and that the arbitrator should decide discovery disputes.
The court agreed with INDIGO and denied the plaintiffs’ motion. The court said the arbitration agreements gave the arbitrator authority to resolve disputes about discovery procedures. Judge Alex G. Tse issued the order.
The detailed version
- McNamee v. indiGO San Francisco, LLC · No. 3:21-cv-01688
- Alex Tse
- Jan. 4, 2022
Background
The court had previously stayed the case under the parties’ agreement while nine separate arbitrations proceeded. Each arbitration was between INDIGO San Francisco, LLC and one of the nine plaintiffs. The arbitrations were still ongoing when the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to determine which discovery rules should apply.
The Parties’ Positions
The plaintiffs argued that discovery should be governed by the discovery rules of JAMS. INDIGO argued that the court should not impose those rules and that any dispute over the applicable discovery procedures should be resolved in arbitration.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that the arbitrator, rather than the court, decides questions about procedure and discovery. The arbitration agreements provided that the parties could conduct adequate civil discovery and use applicable pleading and evidence rules or procedural rules they mutually agreed upon. The agreements also stated that disputes about those matters would be resolved by the arbitrator.
The court concluded that a dispute about which rules apply during discovery falls within the arbitrator’s authority. Because the plaintiffs asked the court to order the parties to follow particular discovery rules, the court denied their motion.
Disposition
The plaintiffs’ motion for a court interpretation of the arbitration agreements was denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.