2012 CO 4
Colo.2012Background
- Original proceeding under C.A.R. 21 challenging enforcement of arbitration subpoenas issued to out-of-state nonparties.
- Arbitrator, at SunOpta's request, issued subpoenas to SK Food International and Adams Vegetable Oil, neither party to arbitration and neither in Colorado.
- Subpoenas served on SK Food and Adams at their California and North Dakota locations; production of records sought.
- District court enforced the subpoenas; SK Food and Adams petitioned for a rule to show cause under C.A.R. 21.
- Court holds Colorado cannot enforce civil subpoenas against out-of-state nonparties; enforcement lies in the discovery state.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Colorado may enforce arbitration subpoenas against out-of-state nonparties | SunOpta; argues Colorado may enforce under its arbitration act and long-arm | SK Food/Adams; contend no authority to enforce extraterritorial subpoenas | Colorado has no authority to enforce; enforcement must occur in discovery state |
| Do Colorado's arbitration act or long-arm statute authorize enforcement of out-of-state subpoenas | District court's enforcement under Colorado ARAct and long-arm is valid | Statutes do not authorize extraterritorial enforcement against nonparties | Neither statute grants such enforcement authority |
| Should enforcement be governed by UIDDA when subpoenas target out-of-state nonparties | UIDDA framework would channel enforcement to discovery state | Enforcement under UIDDA not applicable here since no foreign subpoena issued by trial state court | Enforcement remains in the discovery state; Colorado cannot enforce |
Key Cases Cited
- Solliday v. Dist. Court, 135 Colo. 489 (1957) (out-of-state nonparty cannot be compelled; enforcement in discovery state)
- State of Minnesota ex. rel. Minnesota Attorney General v. District Court, 155 Colo. 521 (1964) (Colorado cannot enforce subpoena against Minnesota nonparty)
- People v. Arellano-Avila, 20 P.3d 1191 (Colo.2001) (no authority to compel foreign deposition; limits on extradisciplinary subpoenas)
- Isis Litigation, L.L.C. v. Svensk Filmindustri, 170 P.3d 742 (Colo.App.2007) (discusses limits of subpoena power across borders)
- In re Nat'l Contract Poultry Growers' Ass'n, 771 So.2d 466 (Ala.2000) (foreign subpoenas require state rule or statute for compulsory process)
- American Online, Inc. v Nam Tai Elec., Inc., 264 Va. 583 (2002) (comity and statutory authority in cross-jurisdiction discovery)