Employers Insurance Company of Wausau v. Ace Property & Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 14

ORDER granting 1 Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award; granting in part and denying in part 5 Motion to Seal Case and 11 Motion for Leave to File Joinder to Motion to Seal. The motions are granted with respect to dkt. 4 , the Declaration of Mark C. Kareken, and all its exhibits, denied with respect to all other filings. The clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of petitioner and close this case. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 3/22/2016. (arw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY
OF WAUSAU,
ORDER
Petitioner,
16-cv-97-bbc
v.
ACE PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Respondent.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Petitioner Employers Insurance Company of Wausau is seeking confirmation of an
arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act. Accompanying its petition is a motion
to keep all case filings under seal. Dkt. #5. In an order dated March 3, 2016, dkt. #8, I
directed petitioner to show cause why the record should not be unsealed in light of the
presumption that documents filed in federal court are public. Hicklin Engineering, L.C. v.
Bartell, 439 F.3d 346, 348 (7th Cir. 2006).
Both parties have responded to the order. Dkt. ##9 and 11. They argue that it is
unnecessary to unseal the records because petitioner is seeking confirmation of an award
under 9 U.S.C. § 9, which requires confirmation without review of the award’s substance in
the absence of a valid challenge to the award under 9 U.S.C. § 10 or 9 U.S.C. § 11.
I agree with the parties that the presumption to keep court records public applies only

1

to documents that affect the disposition of the case. City of Greenville, Illinois v. Syngenta
Crop Protection, LLC, 764 F.3d 695, 697 (7th Cir. 2014) (“[W]e have limited the
presumption of public access to materials that affect judicial decisions.”). Therefore, it is
unnecessary to unseal documents that relate solely to the substance of the arbitration
proceedings. However, the parties’ argument does not apply to the application itself.
Obviously, the application is related to any decision that grants or denies the application.
In addition, the parties identify no reason why the motion to seal or the responses to the
court’s order to show cause should be sealed. Accordingly, I am directing the clerk of court
to unseal the application (dkt. #1), petitioner’s notice of the application (dkt. #2),
petitioner’s brief in support of the application (dkt. #3), petitioner’s motion to seal (dkt.
#5), petitioner’s response to the order to show cause (dkt. #9), petitioner’s declaration in
support of that response (dkt. #10), respondent’s motion for leave to join petitioner’s
motion to seal (dkt. #11) and respondent’s brief in support of that motion (dkt. #12). I will
leave sealed the declaration that relates to the substance of the arbitration proceedings. Dkt.
#4.
In its brief, respondent states repeatedly that it does not oppose petitioner’s
application to confirm the arbitration award. E.g., dkt. #12 at 4 (“The lack of an actual
dispute regarding the validity of the arbitration award and the absence of allegations of
fraud, misconduct, or other procedural issues envisioned by 9 U.S.C. §§ l0 and 11 limits this
Court's discretion and requires but one result—confirmation of the award.”). Accordingly,
I will grant the application.

2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that
1. Petitioner Employers Insurance Company of Wausau’s motion to seal the record
and respondent Ace Property & Casualty Insurance Company’s motion for leave to join
petitioner’s motion, dkt.## 5 and 11, are GRANTED with respect to docket no. 4
(Declaration of Mark Kareken) and all its exhibits. The motions are DENIED with respect
to all other filings.
2. Petitioner’s application to confirm the arbitration award, dkt. #1, is GRANTED.
3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment in favor of petitioner and close this
case.
Entered this 22d day of March, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

3