• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Arbitration Process Issues / COURT REACHES VARYING DECISIONS ON REQUESTS TO SEAL ARBITRATION RECORDS

COURT REACHES VARYING DECISIONS ON REQUESTS TO SEAL ARBITRATION RECORDS

January 31, 2012 by Carlton Fields

A federal district court refused a former employee’s request to seal records of an arbitration proceeding in which the arbitrator ordered that he was not entitled to severance pay. William Fine was terminated from his position at Alexandria Real Estate Equities for making disparaging statements about the company. Alexandria obtained an award holding that it did not owe Fine severance pay and moved to have the award confirmed. In the award, the arbitrator explained the reasons for Fine’s termination and quoted the statements that he had made about Alexandria. Fine did not oppose confirmation but moved to seal portions of the arbitration record, including the petition to confirm, a supporting declaration, and the award itself. The court rejected Fine’s request citing the First Amendment presumption in favor of access to judicial documents and proceedings. The court held that, in order to overcome this presumption, Fine had to show that the “requested sealing is narrowly tailored to preserve ‘higher values.’” Such values, according to case law cited by the court, include protecting: the attorney-client privilege, national security, the privacy of innocent third-parties, and the confidentiality of sensitive patient information. The court found that Fine’s purported reason—that if the records remain public, it will be more difficult for him to get hired by potential employers—did not rise to the level of a “higher value.” Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. v. Fair, Case No. 11-3694 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2011).

A different judge in the same court granted Century Indemnity Company’s motion to seal portions of its petition to compel arbitration, memorandum of law, and affidavit in support. The court did not offer any reasoning for its decision and the motion to seal and memorandum themselves are sealed. It is not apparent, furthermore, whether the motion to seal was contested. Century Indem. Co. v. Everest Reinsurance Co., Case No. 11-8362 (USDC S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2011).

This post written by Ben Seessel.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues, Week's Best Posts

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.