Originally from The College of Commercial Arbitrators Guide to Best Practices in Commercial Arbitration, Fifth Edition

PAGE PREVIEW

I.           INTRODUCTION

 This chapter considers disputes over claims of privilege, postponements, information exchange disputes (what some call discovery disputes, even in arbitration), and dispositive motions. It discusses how to provide a fair, efficient, cost-effective process to resolve them. The chapter ends by discussing the care that must be taken in describing a decision that resolves less than all of the issues before the arbitrator, because of the possibility that an interim or interlocutory order be construed by a court as a final decision that deprives the arbitrator of jurisdiction, under the functus officio doctrine. Replacing parts of chapters 7 and 12 of the fourth edition, this chapter does not include a comprehensive discussion of motions and orders that are treated elsewhere in chapters about those aspects of arbitration to which they relate.  See chapter 2, section VI (motions to disqualify an arbitrator); chapter 5, section VII (motions concerning jurisdiction or arbitrability); and chapter 6, section X, subsection C.(motions to the merits arbitrator for interim relief).

II.          INTERLOCUTORY DISPUTES

It is widely recognized that arbitrators have the authority to consider any form of application and to grant any form of relief, subject to applicable limitations in the arbitration clause, statute, case law, or institutional rules. Statutes, case law, and institutional rules expressly recognize arbitrators’ authority to hear and rule on certain issues in advance of the final award. For example, AAA Rule R-38, JAMS Rule 24(e), Rule 13 of the CPR Non-Admin. and Admin. Rules, and Section 8(b)(1) of the RUAA provide authority to entertain motions for interim or provisional measures. JAMS Rule 18 and AAA Rule  R- 34 expressly provide authority to consider and grant summary disposition.