Washington Schools Risk Management Pool v. American Re-Insurance Company ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 WASHINGTON SCHOOLS RISK MANAGEMENT POOL, 9 Case No. C21-0874-LK Plaintiff, 10 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. SEAL MATERIALS FILED IN 11 CONNECTION WITH REPLY AMERICAN RE-INSURANCE 12 COMPANY et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Sompo International Reinsurance’s 16 Motion to Seal Materials Filed in Connection with Reply, Dkt. 37. For the foregoing reasons, 17 the Court GRANTS the Motion. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 This is an insurance dispute concerning Plaintiff Washington Schools Risk Management 20 Pool’s (“WSRMP”) entitlement to reinsurance payments from Defendants Sompo and American 21 Re-Insurance Company. See Dkt. 27. Sompo and WSRMP dispute whether WSRMP’s claims 22 against Sompo must be arbitrated pursuant to the terms of an arbitration clause in the reinsurance 23 policy between them. On July 15, 2021, WSRMP filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, 1 Dkt. 14, asking the Court to rule as a matter of law that the arbitration clause in the reinsurance 2 policy is void and inapplicable to this dispute. On September 1, 2021, Sompo filed a Motion to 3 Compel Arbitration and Dismiss WSRMP’s Amended Claims. Dkt. 32. In conjunction with its 4 Reply to this Motion, Sompo filed the present Motion to Seal. Dkt. 37. 5 Sompo asks the Court to seal (1) Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Kevin Finnerty, Dkt. 40, 6 and (2) an unredacted version of Sompo’s Reply (collectively, the “Arbitration Information”) 7 because this information “constitute[s] materials and information emanating from the arbitration 8 proceedings pending between Sompo and WSRMP.” Dkt. 37 at 2. Per Sompo, the reinsurance 9 industry’s standard arbitration confidentiality form, the ARIAS-US Form Confidentiality 10 Agreement and Protective Order (the “ARIAS-US Form”), requires parties to seek to file 11 information that pertains to arbitration (like the Arbitration Information) either in redacted form 12 or under seal in court. Id. 13 The ARIAS-Form broadly protects information related to arbitration, see Dkt. 37-1 § 2, 14 but several exceptions apply. One such exception permits a party to disclose information “as is 15 necessary in connection with court proceedings relating to any aspect of the arbitration, included 16 but not limited to motions to confirm, modify, vacate or enforce an award issued in this 17 arbitration.” Id. at § 3(b). However, the ARIAS-US Form requires that, “[i]n connection with 18 any disclosures pursuant to [this exception], the parties agree, subject to court approval, that all 19 submissions of Arbitration Information to a court shall be sealed and/or redacted so as to limit 20 disclosure of Arbitration Information.” Id. at § 3. 21 Neither the parties nor the arbitration panel have executed the ARIAS-US Form at this 22 time. Dkt. 37 at 3. Sompo contends, however, that “there appears to be a substantial likelihood 23 that they (and the Arbitration Panel) ultimately will execute the ARIAS-US Form, ‘as is’ or as 1 modified in response to revisions to be proposed by WSRMP.” Id. As a result, the arbitration 2 panel may order Sompo to seek the Court’s permission to seal the Arbitration Information in 3 accordance with the ARIAS-US Form’s requirements. Id. at 2. Given this, Sompo’s Motion 4 preemptively “seeks to comply with the ARIAS-US Form.” Id. at 4. 5 On September 24, 2021, Sompo conferred with WSRMP regarding Sompo’s request to 6 file the Arbitration Information under seal. Dkt. 37 at 1. WSRMP declined to take a position on 7 Sompo’s request. Id. at 2. 8 On April 20, 2022, the Court entered a Report and Recommendation, which 9 recommended compelling arbitration pursuant to the terms of the parties’ arbitration agreement 10 and dismissing WSRMP’s claims against Sompo. Dkt. 47. 11 II. DISCUSSION 12 All documents filed with the Court are presumptively public. San Jose Mercury News, 13 Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). “[T]he courts of this country 14 recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial 15 records and documents.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th 16 Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Accordingly, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the 17 burden of overcoming the strong presumption in favor of public access. Id. 18 Two standards generally govern requests to seal documents: the “compelling reasons” 19 standard for documents directly related to the underlying causes of action, such as documents 20 attached to summary judgment briefs, and the lesser “good cause” standard for documents only 21 tangentially related to the underlying causes of action, such as some discovery documents. See 22 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Ctr. for 23 1 Auto Safety, LLC, 809 F.3d at 1098; Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2 2010). 3 It is unclear which standard Sompo alleges governs here. Because the “compelling 4 reasons” standard results in greater access to the public, the Court will apply it to Sompo’s 5 Motion to Seal. Doing so, the Court concludes that sealing is warranted. 6 The Court has recommended compelling arbitration and dismissing WSRMP’s claims 7 against Sompo. The ARIAS-US Form (or some modified version thereof) will therefore apply in 8 the arbitration proceedings, requiring the parties to seal and/or redact any court filings that 9 disclose arbitration information. If the Court denies Sompo’s Motion at this juncture, Sompo 10 (who presumably will no longer be a party to this action) will be required to return to this Court 11 at a later date to move to seal the Arbitration Information. 12 Given that (1) the ARIAS-US Form requires the parties to seal and/or redact court filings 13 that disclose arbitration information; (2) Sompo contends, and WSRMP does not dispute, that the 14 parties will adopt the ARIAS-US Form in arbitration; and (3) WSRMP does not oppose Sompo’s 15 Motion to Seal, the Court finds sealing the Arbitration Information warranted. See GEA Grp. AG 16 v. Flex-N-Gate Corp., 740 F.3d 411, 420 (7th Cir. 2014) (holding as a matter of comity that the 17 presumption to public access to the judicial record was overcome by a German arbitration rule 18 that required confidentiality of the arbitration evidence, which the parties were bound by); 19 Mastronardi Int’l Ltd. v. Sunselect Produce (California), Inc., No. 1:18-CV-00737-AWI-JLT, 20 2020 WL 469351, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2020) (granting motion to seal applying the 21 “compelling reasons” standard when the arbitration rules governing the parties’ arbitration 22 required confidentiality). 23 / / / 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, Sompo’s Motion to Seal Materials Filed in Connection with 3 Reply, Dkt. 37, is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties 4 and to the Honorable Lauren King. 5 Dated this 20th day of April, 2022. 6 7 A 8 S. KATE VAUGHAN 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23