THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals
Collins Entertainment Corp. Respondent,
v.
Jack Gardner, individually, Select Electronics Devices, Inc., and Select Electronics Devices, Inc., d/b/a Paradise Games, Appellants.
Appeal From Greenville County
Joseph J. Watson, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2003-UP-550
Submitted July 15, 2003 – Filed September
25, 2003
AFFIRMED
Frank L. Eppes, of Greenville, for Respondent.
J. Falkner Wilkes, of Greenville, for Appellants.
PER CURIAM: Jack Gardner, individually, Select Electronics Devices, Inc., and Select Electronics Devices, Inc., d/b/a Paradise Games (Appellants) appeal the denial of their motion to vacate the arbitrator’s award. We affirm. [1]
This matter was brought before an arbitrator for a proceeding governed by the Commercial Dispute Resolution Procedure of the American Arbitration Association. At the hearing, Collins Entertainment Corp. (Respondent) submitted the testimony of an expert witness who testified as to calculation of damages based upon voluminous documents, which were not disclosed or provided to Appellants five days prior to the hearing. The Appellants objected based upon the documents not being provided to them. The arbitrator gave Appellants’ counsel thirty minutes to review the documents immediately before he began cross-examination of the expert witness. Appellants requested more time to review the documents, particularly documents that were relied upon, but not brought to the hearing. The arbitrator denied the request and told Appellants that he would accept evidence after the hearing was closed to allow Appellants the opportunity to further review the documents and talk to their own expert regarding the conclusions of the Respondent’s expert. The Respondent’s brief asserts, “Appellants subsequently submitted a Post Arbitration Brief” and “Appellants submitted additional documentation and argument addressing the damages issue in at least two separate writings. In none of the post-hearing submissions did Appellant request that the hearing be reconvened for any reason.” Furthermore, Appellants did not submit any information disputing the expert’s testimony. The Respondent moved to confirm and the Appellants cross-moved to vacate before the circuit court. The circuit court denied Appellants’ motion to vacate.
Appellants argue the refusal of the arbitrator to grant postponement constitutes reversible error. We disagree.
The Commercial Dispute Resolution Procedures of the American Arbitration Association govern this action pursuant to the parties’ agreement prior to the hearing. Rule 39 of the AAA Rules states, “Any party who proceeds with the arbitration after knowledge that any provision or requirement of these rules has not been complied with and who fails to state an objection in writing shall be deemed to have waived the right to object.” Appellants contend Rule 23, “Exchange of Information;” Rule 30, “Postponements;” and Rule 32, “Conduct of Proceedings” have been violated and the Appellants did not file a written objection with the arbitrator. Appellants have, therefore, waived any alleged AAA Rules violations.
However, even if Appellants did not waive their right to object, we find there were no violations of the rules. Rule 23(b) sets forth, “At least five (5) business days prior to the hearing, the parties shall exchange copies of all exhibits they intend to submit at the hearing.” The Respondent did not submit the documents that its expert used to base his opinion. Although Rule 33 professes “[c]onformity to legal rules of evidence shall not be necessary,” Rule 703, SCRE allows an expert, such as the Respondent’s, to form an opinion based upon material not admitted into evidence if it is “of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences.” Rule 30 establishes, “The arbitrator may postpone any hearing upon agreement of the parties, upon request of a party for good cause shown, or upon the arbitrator’s initiative.” The arbitrator did not err in continuing with the hearing where good cause was not shown. The arbitrator offered the Appellants the opportunity to submit additional evidence upon further review of the documents and after conferring with their own expert. Rule 32(a) edifies that the “parties [are to be] treated with equality and that each party has the right to be heard and is given a fair opportunity to present its case.” We find the parties were treated with equality and both sides were given a fair opportunity to present its case because the arbitrator allowed Appellants opportunity to review the documents after the close of the hearing and to submit additional information.
AFFIRMED.
CONNOR, ANDERSON, and CURETON, JJ., concur.
[1] This case was decided without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.