Arbitration discovery is typically far narrower than US court discovery: there is no automatic right to depositions, interrogatories, or broad document requests. The tribunal controls scope, often applying guidelines like the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration, which generally favor narrower, targeted document production — frequently organized through a Redfern Schedule listing each disputed request — over sweeping US-style discovery.

Arbitrators also have limited compulsory power over non-parties. Parties often need to seek assistance from a national court, such as under FAA Section 7's subpoena mechanisms — whose reach to non-parties is itself subject to a circuit split — to obtain evidence from someone who isn't bound by the arbitration agreement.

Juricratic treats narrower discovery as a real cost-and-time dial that favors arbitration in a pre-dispute forum-selection comparison, but it also lowers expected evidentiary depth, which should discount the confidence assigned to evidence-based dials feeding the underlying case model.

Parties choosing arbitration for its narrower, faster discovery weigh that benefit against a reduced ability to obtain broad third-party or opponent document production compared to what would be available in ordinary litigation.