2016-2025 Arbitration Decisions

A collection of the most recent U.S. international arbitration decisions is available here. Decisions can be quickly retrieved by using the filter tools below.

• Eddystone Rail Company LLC v. Jamex Transfer Services LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01266 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2018)

  02/07/2018

  Court denied motion to intervene and challenge an arbitration award against the defendant that the interveners’ feared would be enforced against them.  Court held that the interveners, as a non-party to an underlying arbitration, may not intervene in a federal proceeding for the purpose of challenging the validity of an arbitration award because they, inter alia, failed to demonstrate a substantial interest in the arbitration.

• Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. State of Oklahoma, No. 16-6224 (10th Cir. Feb. 6, 2018)

  02/06/2018

  Court of appeals remanded to district court to enter an order vacating the arbitration award.  In accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Hall Street Associates, LLC v. Mattel, Inc., court found the FAA precludes parties to an arbitration agreement from contracting for de novo review of legal determinations in an arbitral award, and therefore, the agreement’s de novo review provision was invalid.  Because the de novo review provision was a material aspect of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate disputes, court held the provision could not be separated from the agreement and the obligation to arbitrate was unenforceable.

• Virtu KCG Holdings LLC v. LI, No. 2:17-CV-08296 (D.N.J. Feb. 6, 2018)

  02/06/2018

  Court denied motion compel arbitration, finding that under the FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) standard a valid agreement to arbitrate exists, but that the issues in dispute do not fall within the scope of that agreement.

• Sherrard v. Macy’s System and Technology Inc., No. 17-11766 (11th Cir. Feb. 5, 2018)

  02/05/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s order compelling arbitration, finding that minor participation in litigation prior to moving to compel arbitration was insufficient to constitute a finding of waiver of the right to arbitrate.

• Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC v. Abel, No. 3:18-CV-00141-MMH-MCR (M.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2018)

  02/05/2018

  Court granted emergency motion to stay proceedings pending FINRA arbitration, agreeing to extent a temporary restraining order until the hearing commenced.

• 2020 Communications, Inc. v. Blevins, No. 17-10160 (5th Cir. Feb. 5, 2018)

  02/05/2018

  Court of appeals denied an appeal of an order denying a preliminary injunction for lack of jurisdiction. Court held that under §16(b)(4) of the FAA, with limited exceptions inapplicable in the current case, it was not permitted to consider appeals from interlocutory orders that refuse to enjoin arbitrations.

• Payne v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00076 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 5, 2018)

  02/05/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court held that the plaintiff’s claims under state law are not sufficient for subject matter jurisdiction, particularly since neither the FAA nor a motion to compel arbitration under the FAA confers subject matter jurisdiction on federal courts.

• Koby v. ARS National Services, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-00780-KSC (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2018)

  02/05/2018

  Court denied motion to compel arbitration, holding that the evidence proffered by the non-signatory defendant to establish its ability to enforce the arbitration agreement in question was inadmissible.

• Mandviwala v. Five Star Quality Care, Inc., No. 16-55084 (9th Cir. Feb. 2, 2018)

  02/02/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed in part and remanded to the district court to order arbitration of victim-specific relief, finding that putative class claims under California Private Attorney General Act were not arbitrable and could not be waived, but that labor law claims for unpaid wages could be arbitrated.

• Group III Mgt., Inc. v. Dragados USA Inc., No. 7:17-CV-00240-D (E.D.N.C. Feb. 2, 2018)

  02/02/2018

  Court granted motion to stay the action pending mediation and arbitration, finding that all of the plaintiff’s claims arise from and depend on a written contract that contains a valid and enforceable arbitration provision.

• Hancock Mechanical LLC v. McClain Contracting Company Inc., No. 1:17-CV-00054 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 2, 2018)

  02/02/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case, holding that pursuant to the FAA and Mississippi contract law, as well as the parties’ conduct, all the elements necessary for formation of a contract and the associated arbitration agreement are present.  Court also held that the breach of contract claim against the defendant falls within the parameters of the arbitration agreement.

• Leidos, Inc. v. Hellenic Republic, No. 17-7082 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 2, 2018)

  02/02/2018

  Court of appeals reversed district court’s grant of petitioner’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to convert an arbitral award rendered against the Hellenic Republic from euros into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rate on the date of the original arbitral award.  Court found the district court incorrectly concluded that the Rule 59(e) prohibition on raising new issues did not apply to petitioner because it was not a ‘losing party’ and determined that it was not manifestly unjust to award petitioner’s judgment in euros. 

• Method, LLC v. Make It Right Foundation, No. 9:17-CV-00025-DLC (D. Mont. Feb. 1, 2018)

  02/01/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid arbitration agreement and that defendants had not waived their rights to arbitration, concluding that although defendants knew of the right to arbitrate they did not behave inconsistently with this right and plaintiffs did not establish that they had been prejudiced.  Court also denied plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions for defendants’ failure to engage in ADR in good faith during the litigation, finding there was no evidence of conduct rising to the level of bad faith to justify sanctions.

• Cook v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, No. 1:16-CV-04186-MHC (N.D. Ga. Jan. 31, 2018)

  01/31/2018

  Court approved and adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to grant defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay action.  Magistrate judge concluded that defendant had proven that the agreement was valid; the record was clear that Barclays offered an account to plaintiff via the agreement, plaintiff was aware of the terms of the agreement, and she agreed with those terms (as evidenced by her use).  Magistrate judge further concluded that defendant’s valid assignment from Barclays enabled defendant to enforce the arbitration clause contained in the agreement.

• Brenco Enterprises, INC. v. Bitesquad.com, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01263-TSE-IDD (E.D. Va. Jan. 31, 2018)

  01/31/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, noting that the parties made clear that they intended for the arbitrator to evaluate questions of arbitrability by incorporating AAA rules into the agreement.

• Credit Acceptance Corporation v. McDonald, No. 3:17-CV-00644-TSL-RHW (S.D. Miss. Jan. 30, 2018)

  01/30/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found a valid arbitration agreement and concluded that defendant’s intentional tort claims fell within the broad scope of the arbitration clause.

• Domain Vault LLC v. Rightside Group Ltd, No. 3:17-CV-00789-B (N.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2018)

  01/30/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration, finding under the FAA that plaintiff assented to the online agreement to arbitrate.  Even though defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement, court concluded that the doctrine of equitable estoppel applied and the defendant could compel arbitration.
  
   

• Visteon Corporation v. Leuliette, No. 4:16-CV-11180-TGB-EAS (E.D. Mich. Jan. 30, 2018)

  01/30/2018

  Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award and granted in part motion to seal.  Court denied motion to partially vacate the award, finding pursuant to the FAA and sixth circuit precedent the proper provision of the FAA for partial vacatur was § 11 not § 10, as argued by petitioners and regardless, there was no valid basis to disturb the award.  Court held that to satisfy the public interest the arbitration award must be unsealed, but the remainder of the record could remain under seal.

• Knight v. Idea Buyer, LLC, No. 17-3539 (6th Cir. Jan. 29, 2018) 

  01/29/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s decision dismissing the class action suit on the merits but found that a motion to dismiss pursuant to an arbitration agreement should be construed as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) not 12(b)(1) as pleaded by defendant.  Under the FAA, court held that plaintiffs’ claim that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because the overarching “Fast Track Agreement” was invalid should be addressed by the arbitrator because it was a challenge to the contract as a whole not just the arbitration provision.  Court determined the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) claims were arbitrable, concluding there was no evidence of a clear congressional intent to make AIPA claims nonarbitrable.
   

• Jackson Laboratory v. Nanjing University, No. 1:17-CV-00363-GZS (D. Me. Jan. 29, 2018)

  01/29/2018

  Court granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve process via email and personal service on three defendants domiciled in China under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) and 4(h) in relation to a petition to compel arbitration.  Concluding that the proposed service comported with requirements of Rule 4(f)(3) and due process, court noted that 4(f) does not require compliance with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents (“Hague Service Convention”) or mandate exhaustion of other service methods before seeking court-ordered service.  Court also found service by email appropriate where the signatory country objects to service by postal channels under Article 10 of the Hague Service Convention.

• Unite Here Local 30 v. Volume Services, Inc., No. 16-55528 (9th Cir. Jan. 26, 2018)

  01/26/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed district court’s rejection of motion to compel arbitration, finding that district court did not err in concluding that arbitration was not required where a mediator issued a decision that is final and binding.

• Byk v. Spira, No. 1:16-CV-05612-KBF (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2018)

  01/26/2018

  Court lifted stay on confirmation of arbitral award after an Israeli court confirmed the award.  Court rejected respondent’s arguments that the court should maintain the stay while respondent pursues an appeal.

• Warciak v. Subway Restaurants, Inc., No. 17-1956 (7th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018)

  01/25/2018

  Court of appeals reversed and remanded district court’s ruling granting a motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that Illinois state law rather than federal law applied when determining whether a contract’s arbitration clause binds a non-signatory, and that defendant restaurant chain was therefore unable to rely on estoppel to enforce the arbitration agreement in the contract when plaintiff was neither a signatory nor a party to the contract.

• Keller v. T-Mobile, No. 2:16-CV-02143-CM-GLR (D. Kan. Jan. 25, 2018)

  01/25/2018

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion to remove case from arbitration and proceed with a case management order or compel a new arbitration proceeding.  Pursuant to the FAA, court found that there was no evidence of arbitrator bias and that the plaintiff received a fundamentally fair hearing.

• Ben-Salah v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc. of Delaware, No. 3:17-CV-00907-YY (D. Or. Jan. 25, 2018)

  01/25/2018

  Court adopted the magistrate’s judge’s findings and recommendations and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss or in the alternative to stay proceedings and compel arbitration.  Court agreed with the magistrate judge that (i) the question of equitable tolling was presumptively for the arbitrator to decide, (ii) plaintiff’s challenges to the arbitration based on arguments about formation of contract should be rejected, and (iii) plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement and unconscionability arguments are not specific to the arbitration clause and therefore not for the court to decide.

• LLC International, Inc. v. Torgerson, No. 2:17-CV-02508-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan. Jan. 25, 2018)

  01/25/2018

  Court denied petition to vacate, rejecting petitioner’s assertion that the arbitrator exceeded his authority.  Court concluded that (i) it had jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s request to vacate the arbitrator’s order, even though the arbitration was ongoing; (ii) the arbitrator never held that the AAA Supplementary Rules did not apply and therefore did not exceed his authority; and (iii) in denying petitioner’s motion for clause construction award, the arbitrator never “strayed from his delegated task” and petitioner’s arguments to the contrary “simply address how well he performed his task of interpreting the Agreement.”

• YPF S.A. v. Apache Overseas, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00178 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2018)

  01/25/2018

  Court denied petitioner’s emergency motion to stay arbitration, or in the alternative to enjoin arbitration.  Petitioner YPF and respondent Apache submitted their dispute to KPMG for arbitration, after which Apache initiated an ICC arbitration against KPMG.  Noting that the FAA “exists in part to ensure that courts cannot undermine contractual agreements to arbitrate disputes,” the court concluded that Apache had a contractual right to arbitrate its dispute with KPMG, and that it would not be appropriate for the court to interfere with that right by issuing a stay or injunction.  Court further noted that should the ICC arbitration result in an outcome that undermines court orders, FAA § 10(a)(4) authorizes a federal court to set aside an arbitral award “where the arbitrators exceeded their powers.”
  
   

• Blackstone Consulting, Inc., v. R&R Food Services L.L.C., No. 5:17-CV-011118-HE (W.D. Okla. 24 Jan. 2018)

  01/24/2018

  Court granted a party’s request to intervene in this case in order to protect its interest in recovering compensation awarded in arbitration against one of the defendants.  Court found the third party interest could be impeded or impaired by allowing the litigation to continue without it and, as a result, granted the motion to intervene.

• Huron Consulting Group, Inc. v. Gruner, No. 1:17-CV-06042 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2018)

  01/24/2018

  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue or, in the alternative, lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Court noted that while the parties designated an arbitral forum (JAMS), they failed to incorporate the JAMS rules, and therefore defendant failed to present the requisite clear and unmistakable evidence of the parties’ intent to arbitrate arbitrability.

• Inception Mining, Inc. v. Danzig, Ltd., No. 2:17-CV-00944-DN (D. Utah Jan. 24, 2018)

  01/24/2018

  Court denied in part and granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss.  Court held that subject matter jurisdiction existed and venue was proper to determine if plaintiffs may be required to arbitrate.  However, since issues of arbitrability were to be decided by the arbitrator, the motion to dismiss was granted in part.

• McIntosh v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-03273 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 24, 2018)

  01/24/2018

  Court granted Uber’s motion to compel in part and denied it in part.  Court found that (i) plaintiff’s challenges to contract formation did not have merit, and (ii) because plaintiff was challenging the arbitration provision as a whole, rather than the delegation clause specifically, plaintiff’s unconscionability arguments were for the arbitrator to decide.

• West African Ventures Limited v. Ranger Offshore, Inc., No. 4:17-CV-00548 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2018)

  01/24/2018

  Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss and stayed defendant’s counterclaims in favor of arbitration.  Court concluded that all of defendant Ranger’s counterclaims were subject to the arbitration agreement, and plaintiffs did not waive arbitration by bringing suit to enforce guarantees, which did not contain an arbitration provision.

• Bartels v. Saber Healthcare Group, LLC, No. 16-2247 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2018)

  01/23/2018

  Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings on the question of whether all of the defendants are bound by the forum-selection clause.  In reaching its decision, court noted that it had previously explained in the arbitration context that if the charges against the parent company and its subsidiary are based on the same facts and are inherently inseparable, a court may refer claims against the parent to arbitration even though the parent is not formally a party to the arbitration agreement.  Similarly, under the well-established common law principles of estoppel and alter-ego theories, a non-signatory can be bound by a contractual clause executed by a third party.

• Berkowitz v. Republic of Costa Rica, No. 1:17-CV-00148-RJL (D.D.C. Jan. 23, 2018)

  01/23/2018

  Court denied claimants’ petition to vacate the interim arbitration award and dismissed petitioners’ case with prejudice.  Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to review the interim award because it was not final, noting that it is generally improper for a district court to interfere with an international arbitration before the tribunal issues a final ruling and that other circuits have similarly held that the FAA precludes review of interlocutory arbitration decisions.

• Roberts v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 3:15-CV-03418-EMC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018)

  01/23/2018

  Court granted motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration in light of plaintiffs’ argument that there is a new legal basis establishing that arbitration should not be compelled.  Since the court’s prior order, the California Supreme Court determined in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal. 5th 945 (2017) that (i) holding that an arbitration agreement waives the right to seek the statutory remedy of public injunctive relief is contrary to public policy and therefore unenforceable, and (ii) there is no FAA preemption of that California rule.

• Tidewater Investment SRL v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, No. 1:15-CV-01960-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2018)

  01/22/2018

  Court granted respondent’s motion to vacate the ex parte order recognizing the ICSID arbitration award.  Court explained that the Second Circuit has held in Mobil Cerro Negro, Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 863 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2017) that ICSID award creditors can only enforce their awards against foreign states in the U.S. by commencing a plenary action that complies with all the jurisdictional and procedural requirements of the FSIA.

• Citi Cars, Inc. v. Cox Enterprises, Inc., 1:17-CV-22190-KMM (S.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2018)

  01/22/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration and stayed proceedings.  Court rejected argument that the applicable arbitration clauses were unconscionable given their lack of true mutuality and limitations on damages and prehearing discovery, ruling that plaintiff failed to substantiate its procedural unconscionability contentions, such that the rest of its argument on this point was therefore foreclosed.  Court further held that it was up to the arbitrator to determine whether certain provisions in the arbitration clauses were void because they contravened related anti-trust laws and that, in any case, they were severable and did not render the entire arbitration agreement invalid.  Finally, court held that even the non-signatory defendants could move to compel arbitration as plaintiff’s claims against them were “inextricably intertwined” with its claims against the other defendants. 

• Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Repins, No. 3:17-CV-00323-JCH (D. Conn. Jan. 22, 2018)

  01/22/2018

  Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration, concluding that defendant’s arguments were matters delegated to the arbitrator by the delegation provision in the parties’ agreement.

• Holl v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-05856-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2018)

  01/22/2018

  Court denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the order granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.  Court noted that there is “clear Ninth Circuit authority” holding that the FAA requires federal district courts to stay judicial proceedings and compel arbitration of claims covered by a written and enforceable arbitration agreement.

• Olstad v. Chase Auto Finance Corporation, No. 3:17-CV-00236-WMC (W.D. Wis. Jan. 22, 2018)

  01/22/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to stay the action and compel arbitration.  Court held that the issue of arbitrability was for the arbitrator to decide, as plaintiffs had conceded that the arbitration clause was enforceable as to all of its claims save one, and the arbitration clause delegated the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator.  Court further held that a stay was more appropriate than a dismissal as “it is possible, if unlikely, that the arbitrator may find that plaintiffs’ conversation claim is not arbitrable.

• On v. Vannucci, M.D., Inc., et al., No. 214-cv-02714-TLN-CMK (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2018)

  01/19/2018

  Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in favor of compulsory arbitration.  Court found that plaintiffs failed to show that they were prejudiced by the four month period between the date plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint adding defendant SAVI and the date defendants SAVI and NVDC filed their motion to compel.  With respect to defendant NVDC, court found that plaintiffs failed to show that (i) NVDC delayed its right to compel arbitration for three years, (ii) NVDC’s actions were inconsistent with any right to arbitrate, or (iii) plaintiffs were prejudiced by NVDC’s actions.

• MediaNews Group, Inc. v. Daily Gazette Company, No. 2:17-CV-03921 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 19, 2018)

  01/19/2018

  Court granted motion to confirm arbitral award, finding that the scope of judicial review as established by the FAA is mandatory and cannot be expanded by contract, and that purported “clear legal error” is not reviewable under the “manifest disregard of law” standard.

• Little v. Cellco Partnership, No. 1:17-CV-03931 (S.D.W. Va. Jan. 19, 2018)

  01/19/2018

  Court granted motion to compel arbitration, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that incorporation by reference of arbitration agreement in another document was insufficient to provide notice of arbitration provision, since the executed document gave independent notice of the arbitration clause.

• McAllister v. St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00172-SNLJ (E.D. Mo. Jan. 19, 2018)

  01/19/2018

  Court denied third party defendant’s motion to participate in discovery.  Plaintiff McAllister filed a complaint against the St. Louis Rams, who in turn filed a third party complaint against the Regional Convention and Visitors Commission (“CVC”).  The proceeding between the Rams and the CVC was then stayed as required by the FAA.  Court found that because the CVC agreed to arbitration “and all of its appurtenant circumstances,” it also consented to a situation where it would not be able to participate in the discovery occurring between plaintiff and the Rams.

• Capax Discovery, Inc. v. AEP RSD Investors, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-00500-CCR (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2018)

  01/19/2018

  Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, strike, and to compel arbitration.  Court found that the only disputes that the parties’ intended to be resolved by an independent accountant were those arising from the value of the earn-out provisions or Zovy’s present book value.  This was evidenced by (i) the narrow focus of the agreement on resolving disputed values related to the earn-out provision, (ii) the direction that the dispute be resolved by an independent accountant who was to act “as an expert and not arbitrator,” and (iii) the New York choice of law and forum selection clause.

• Castellanos v. Mariner Finance, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-03168-MJG (D. Md. Jan. 19, 2018)

  01/19/2018

  Court granted defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and to stay action.  Court found that there was no undue delay and no “trial-oriented activity” that would warrant a finding of prejudice, and although defendant filed a collection action against plaintiff in small claims court, such action was not subject to arbitration under the parties’ agreement.

• Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Miller, No. 3:16-CV-00311-WHB-JCG (S. D. Miss. Jan, 18, 2017)

  01/18/2018

  Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel arbitration.  Court held that the parties agreed to arbitrate all claims arising out of or relating to any relationship in the sales contract at issue, that the non-signatory plaintiffs could compel arbitration of a valid agreement under Mississippi law, that the agreement contained a delegation provision by which the parties agreed to arbitrate arbitratability, including claims contesting the enforceability, scope, or conscionability of that agreement.

• Dorman v. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., No. 17-CV-00285-CW (N.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2018)

  01/18/2018

  Court rejected motion to compel arbitration, finding that (i) named plaintiff was not bound by arbitration agreement in retirement plan document since that document was issued after named plaintiff terminated his participation in the plan; (ii) no other arbitration agreement covered the claims at issue; and (iii) in any event, the named plaintiff could not waive rights that belong to the plan, such as the right to file an ERISA claim in court.

• Degidio v. Crazy Horse Saloon and Restaurant Inc, No. 17-1145 (4th Cir. Jan. 18, 2018)

  01/18/2018

  Court of appeals affirmed denial of motion to compel arbitration, finding that party who had pursued a merits-based litigation strategy three years before asking the court to compel arbitration had waived its right to arbitration.

• In re Stati v. State Street Corporation, No. 1:15-MC-91059-LTS (D. Mass. Jan. 18, 2018)

  01/18/2018

  Court partially granted motion to compel discovery for use in foreign arbitral award enforcement proceedings under 28 USC § 1782, finding that the request fell within the scope of § 1782 since the foreign enforcement proceedings are adjudicative in nature (rather than prosecutorial), but that the petitioners had not yet established that documents sought were in the possession, custody, or control of the respondent and would be limited to conducting a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition to determine whether the control requirement was met.