With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is unfaithful to its terms, and absent a Congressional amendment to § 7, an arbitrator lacks the ability to compel pre-hearing discovery from non-parties. Therefore, the Court shall deny the instant Petition, as it seeks to use the Court’s power to enforce an ultra vires action by the arbitrator. Accordingly, after due consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Respondent American Express Travel Related Services Company’s Petition To Enforce Subpoena Duces Tecum Against Patricia Lurie (DE 3) be and the same is hereby DENIED; 2. The above-styled cause be and the same is hereby DISMISSED; and 3. To the extent not othexwise disposed of herein, all pending motions are hereby DENIED as moot. 1 . See, e.g., In re Security Life Ins. Co., 228 F.3d 865, 870-71 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Stanton v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis,

A: holding nonparty agency had standing to appeal order committing to agencys custody an individual found incompetent to stand trial for capital murder agency asserted trial court lacked authority to issue commitment order
B: holding that the court had authority under rule 45 to modify and enforce subpoenas against nonparty federal agencies
C: holding arbitration panel had authority to order the prehearing production of documents from a nonparty
D: holding denial of mandamus challenging arbitration order did not bar appeal of that order after arbitration was completed
C.