Adam Veinotte v. Milford DCH, Inc. d/b/a DCH Toyota of Milford

2021 DNH 168

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: October 25, 2021
• Docket: 20-cv-777-PB
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Adam Veinotte

v. Case No. 20-cv-777-PB Opinion No. 2021 DNH 168 Milford DCH, Inc. d/b/a DCH Toyota of Milford

ORDER

Adam Veinotte has sued his former employer, Milford DCH,

Inc. He asserts claims for disability discrimination,

harassment, and retaliation in violation of the Americans with

Disabilities Act, retaliation in violation of the Family and

Medical Leave Act, and wrongful termination in violation of

state law. The parties subsequently agreed to stay the case

pending arbitration. DCH now moves to lift the stay for the

limited purpose of allowing third party discovery for use in the

arbitration.

I agree with the majority of circuit courts that have

addressed the question that an arbitrator lacks the power under

the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) to compel prehearing

depositions and document discovery from third parties. See

Managed Care Advisory Group, LLC v. CIGNA Healthcare, Inc., 939

F.3d 1145, 1159 (11th Cir. 2019) (collecting cases). What DCH

is attempting to do here is to circumvent that limitation on the

arbitrator’s power by asking me to lift the stay in this case solely for the purpose of allowing discovery for use in the

arbitration. I decline to participate in that effort. This

case simply does not present the type of unusual circumstances

where a court may lift a stay that is otherwise required by

Section 3 of the FAA.

Motion (Doc. No. 13) denied.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Paul J. Barbadoro Paul J. Barbadoro United States District Judge

October 25, 2021

cc: John P. Sherman, Esq. Gregory S. Paonessa, Esq. Eric G. J. Kaviar, Esq.