of a subpoena duces tecum on a person not a party for the purposes of discovery.”). In fact, “[t] he accepted view was that nothing in Rule 45 gave the court the power to issue documents-only subpoenas to non-parties.” Hay Group, Inc., 360 F.3d at 408. The FAA stopped tracking the language of Rule 45 in 1991, when Rule 45 was amended to give to parties in federal court broader power for pre-trial discovery from non-parties. Section 7 has not been so amended. Therefore, its meaning today is no different than its and Rule 45’s meaning in 1990. Simply put, an expansive reading of the 685 F.Supp. 1241, 1242 (S.D.Fla. 1988) (finding that arbitrators have implicit power to order pre-hearing non-party discovery); Festus v. Merrill Lynch & Pierce, 432 F.Supp.2d 1375, 1377-78 (N.D.Ga.2006) (<HOLDING>); cf. COMSAT Corp. v. Nat'l Sci. Found., 190
holding that an aaa arbitration was a private proceeding and therefore that a decision by the arbitrator pursuant to the federal arbitration act did not constitute state action holding that the court had authority under rule 45 to modify and enforce subpoenas against nonparty federal agencies holding that rookerfeldman precludes jurisdiction over a federal lawsuit to compel arbitration under the federal arbitration act because the action was inextricably intertwined with the plaintiffs failed statelaw action to compel arbitration under the louisiana arbitration act holding that the district court has jurisdiction to order nonparty private equity firm to comply with subpoenas issued under the federal arbitration act holding arbitration panel had authority to order the prehearing production of documents from a nonparty