In the Sixth Circuit, a district court's enforcement of an arbitral subpoena is not predicated on a determination of the propriety of the underlying arbitration. Am. Fed. of Television and Radio Artists, AFL-CIO v. WJBK-TV et al., 164 F.3d 1004, 1008-10 (6th Cir. 1999). While that issue might be raised in some other proceeding, the instant dispute before the Court, which is "strictly collateral to the arbitration," is not the proper framework for consideration of the arguments made by Clearview Glass.

" 9 U.S.C. § 7. Such a summons may be "served in the same manner as subpoenas to appear and testify before the court" and may be enforced by the "district court for the district in which such arbitrators, or a majority of them, are sitting." Id.; see also American Fed'n of Television and Radio Artists v. WJBK-TV, 164 F.3d 1004, 1009 (6th Cir. 1999) (applying the reasoning of the FAA in holding that an arbitration subpoena could be enforced in federal court). Kroger argues that the proper forum for the Union to challenge any perceived inadequacies in Kroger's compliance with the September 15, 2014 order is by filing an appropriate motion with Arbitrator Wolf, and not with the district court. While the initial petition sought procedural enforcement of the September 15, 2014 order from Arbitrator Wolf, the reply memorandum raises substantive discovery issues.

This argument lacks merit. As with the DJA, the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., alone does not create subject matter jurisdiction in federal court. Green v. Ameritech Corp., 200 F.3d 967, 973 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing Ford v. Hamilton Invs., Inc., 29 F.3d 255, 257 (6th Cir. 1994); American Fed. or Television and Radio Artists, AFL-CIO v. WJBK-TV (New WorldCommunications of Detroit, Inc.), 164 F.3d 1004, 1007 (6th Cir. 1999). "Merely referring to a federal statute . . . does not establish federal jurisdiction if the dispute does not involve `a substantial question of federal law.'"

However, two circuits and a district court within this circuit have held that the FAA impliedly permits the arbitration panel to order document discovery prior to a hearing. Sec. Life Ins. Co., 228 F.3d at 871; Stanton v. Paine Webber Jackson Curtis, Inc., 685 F.Supp. 1241, 1242 (S.D.Fla. 1988); recognized in Am. Fed'n of Television Radio Artists, AFL-CIO v. WJBK-TV (New World Commc'ns of Detroit, Inc.), 164 F.3d 1004, 1010 (6th Cir. 1999). Further, the NASD Panel itself determined that it had the authority to issue subpoenas for documents.

See Valenzuela. Bock, 696 F.Supp. at 965 (noting that a § 4 petition in a labor proceeding under the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185 ("LMEA"), "will . . . be in federal court by virtue of the provisions of § 301" of the LMRA). Cf. Am. Fed'n of Television Radio Artists, AFL-CIO v. WJBK-TV, 164 F.3d 1004, 1008 (6th Cir.1999) (holding, in an action under § 7 of the FAA to enforce a subpoena issued by an arbitrator, that an "agreement to arbitrate itself arises under federal law" where it is part of a collective bargaining agreement governed by § 301 of the LMRA). Agreements subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") may present a similar situation.

At this point the dispute is whether the court has jurisdiction to enforce a subpoena against the non-signatories, and Active Transportation Company's role in this legal dispute is minimal and their brief generally adopts the arguments of Mr. Troha and JHT. Furthermore, it is not clear that Active Transportation Company is even a proper defendant. The Teamsters seek enforcement against Mr. Troha and JHT, and it is not apparent how the district court could have ordered relief from Active Transportation Company that could have redressed the Teamsters alleged injury. Accord Am. Fed'n of Television and Radio Artists v. WJBK-TV, 164 F.3d 1004, 1013 n. 6 (6th Cir. 1999) (Clay, J., dissenting) (questioning standing to bring this type of suit against the signatory when relief is only sought from the third-parties named in the subpoena).I. Background

See also Odfjell ASA v. Celanese, 328 F. Supp.2d 505, 507 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (expressly agreeing with the Third Circuit's Hay Group decision, cited above). While Petitioner would have the Court look to Am. Fed'n of Television & Radio Artists, AFL-CIO v. WJBK-TV (New World Commc'ns of Detroit, Inc.), 164 F.3d 1004 (6th Cir. 1999), that Sixth Circuit decision is based 29 U.S.C. § 185, i.e., § 301 of the Labor Relations Management Act (LRMA), and the mention of the FAA is dicta. Am. Fed'n, 164 F.3d at 1009 ("We hold that under § 301, a labor arbitrator is authorized to issue a subpoena duces tecum to compel a third party to produce records he deems material to the case either before or at an arbitration hearing.") (emphasis added).

The arbitrator rejected both of Hormann's arguments. First, he concluded that American Federation of TV & Radio Artists v. WJBK-TV, 164 F.3d 1004 (6th Cir. 1999), provides the authority in the Sixth Circuit for an arbitrator to issue a pre-hearing subpoena against a non-party.

Moreover, "the federal nature of underlying claims submitted to arbitration does not confer federal question jurisdiction over a suit to confirm an arbitration award since the rights asserted 'are actually based on the contract to arbitrate rather than on the underlying substantive claims.'" Am. Fed'n of Television & Radio Artists, AFL-CIO v. WJBK-TV (New World Commc'ns of Detroit, Inc.), 164 F.3d 1004, 1007 (6th Cir. 1999) (quoting Detroit Pension Fund v. Prudential Sec., Inc., 91 F.3d 26, 29 (6th Cir. 1996)). Thus, despite the potential applicability of the FAA, Williams must still establish that this case "fall[s] within [the] Court's jurisdiction."

9 U.S.C. § 7. The same principles underlying the Congressional decision to create an enforcement mechanism for arbitration subpoenas pursuant to the FAA apply to arbitrations brought pursuant to collective bargaining agreements even when those arbitrations do not fall under the application of the FAA. Troha, 328 F.3d at 330 (citing United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 40 n. 9 (1987) ("[F]ederal courts have often looked to the [Federal Arbitration] Act for guidance in labor arbitration cases, especially in the wake of the holding that § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U.S.C. § 185, empowers the federal courts to fashion rules of federal common law. . . . ")); Am.Fed'n of Television Radio Artists v. WJBK-TV, 164 F.3d 1004, 1009 (6th Cir. 1999) (applying the reasoning of the FAA in holding that an arbitration subpoena could be enforced in federal court without deciding whether the FAA itself applied to the case before it). Therefore, this Court finds that it has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to federal common law under section 301 of the LMRA because the purpose of this lawsuit effectuates the goals of section 301 and is consistent with the subpoena enforcement provision of the FAA.