1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

AMERISURE MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY (f/k/a Michigan Mutual 

Insurance Company), Case No. 14-cv-13060 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

 Movant, 

v. 

EVEREST REINSURANCE COMPANY 

(f/k/a Prudential Reinsurance Company), 

 Respondent. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOVANT’S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO CONFIRM FINAL 

ARBITRATION AWARD UNDER SEAL (ECF #19) 

 This action arises out of an arbitration between Movant Amerisure Mutual 

Insurance Company (“Amerisure”) and Respondent Everest Reinsurance Company 

(“Everest”). Amerisure has asked the Court to confirm the arbitration panel’s 

Decision and Final Award (the “Final Award”). (See ECF #2.) Everest opposes 

confirmation and instead requests that the Court vacate the Final Award. (See ECF 

#23.) Now pending before the Court is a motion by Amerisure to file under seal 

the brief supporting its motion to confirm the Final Award. (See the “Motion to 

Seal,” ECF #19.) 

2:14-cv-13060-MFL-MJH Doc # 26 Filed 10/29/14 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 215
2

 According to Amerisure, the parties’ arbitration “was conducted pursuant to 

a Confidentiality Agreement between Amerisure and Everest.” (Id. at ¶1.) Among 

other things, this confidentiality agreement states that the “final award and any 

interim decisions, correspondence, oral discussions and information exchanged in 

connection with the proceedings will be kept confidential.” (Id. at ¶3; see also 

ECF #3-1 at ¶1.) The confidentiality agreement further provides that “all 

submissions of Arbitration Information to a court shall be sealed.” (Id.) 

Amerisure insists that this agreement requires it to petition the Court for 

permission to “file under seal the Panel’s Decision and Final Award and the 

portions of Amerisure’s Motion to Confirm discussing the content of the Panel’s 

Decision and Final Award.” (Motion to Seal at ¶4.) Amerisure therefore asks the 

Court to “seal all final decisions, awards, and deliberations as called for by the 

Confidentiality agreement [sic], or none of them.” (Id. at ¶8.) 

 Everest opposes Amerisure’s Motion to Seal in part. It contends that a 

complete sealing of the Final Award (and any references to the arbitration panel’s 

decision making process) is inconsistent with controlling Sixth Circuit precedent. 

(See Everest’s Response Brief, ECF #22 at 7-8, Pg. ID 166-67.) Everest 

acknowledges, however, that “the final award does contain certain information that 

is properly subject to sealing under the standards applied in this Circuit.” (Id. at 1, 

Pg. ID 160.) More specifically, Everest contends that the Court should seal 

2:14-cv-13060-MFL-MJH Doc # 26 Filed 10/29/14 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 216
3

portions of the Final Award that (1) identify and contain testimony from nonparties to the arbitration and (2) “reflect substantive rulings of the panel majority.” 

(Id. at 1-2, Pg. ID 160-61.) 

 The legal standards governing Amerisure’s motion to seal are wellestablished. It is long-settled, for instance, that the Court “has supervisory power 

over its own records and files,” Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 

589, 598 (1978), and that this authority includes allowing parties to file certain 

documents under seal. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 26(c). The Court, however, must 

balance this power with the “long-established legal tradition” of public access to 

court documents. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation v. Federal Trade 

Commission, 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983). “Only the most compelling 

reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” In re Knoxville NewsSentinel Co., Inc., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir. 1983). 

 Sealing the portions of the Final Award that identify non-parties to the 

arbitration is consistent with these governing principles. Indeed, in Brown & 

Williamson, supra, the Sixth Circuit recognized that protecting the “privacy rights” 

of third parties may justify filing certain information under seal, 710 F.2d at 1179, 

and Amerisure agrees that the third parties in question have legitimate privacy 

interests worthy of protection through a seal order protecting their identity. (See 

Amerisure Reply Br., ECF #24 at 7, Pg. ID 209.) 

2:14-cv-13060-MFL-MJH Doc # 26 Filed 10/29/14 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 217
4

 Sealing portions of the Final Award containing the panel majority’s 

“discrete substantive rulings,” however, cannot be reconciled with the governing 

legal principles. Everest argues that “[i]f the substantive rulings were disclosed, 

Everest would likely face additional reinsureds, similar to Amerisure, attempting 

to cite the blanket pronouncements in the final award to support their claims, 

despite the confidential nature of this arbitration.” (Id. at 16, Pg. ID 175.) Thus, 

Everest says, “substantive rulings of the panel majority must be sealed because 

there is a real threat that public disclosure could harm Everest’s financial 

interests.” (Id. at 2, Pg. ID 161.) The only authority Everest cites for this position 

is this Court’s decision in Vitel Diagnostics, Inc. v. Bossardet, 11-cv-14575, 2012 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147234 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 12, 2012.) But Vitel Diagnostics

actually undermines Everest’s argument. 

In Vitel Diagnostics, the Court ordered certain financial statements to be 

filed under seal because it determined that public disclosure of this information 

“create[d] a substantial risk of financial harm...” Id. at *6. The documents at 

issue “set[] forth detailed financial information for the complete operation of 

plaintiff’s business.” Id. Thus, the Court found that because “plaintiff [was] a 

closely-held business operating in a highly competitive and specialized market,” 

the information, if publically disclosed, “would have [led] to significant financial 

harm.” Id. 

2:14-cv-13060-MFL-MJH Doc # 26 Filed 10/29/14 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 218
5

 In stark contrast here, Everest is not seeking to seal the substantive portions 

of the Final Award in order to protect its own confidential business data or trade 

secrets as in Vitel Diagnostics. Instead, it simply seeks to prevent unhelpful 

portions of the Final Award from becoming public in an effort to avoid future 

litigation (and to avoid citation of the Final Award in future litigation). (See 

Everest’s Reply Br. at 2, Pg. ID 161.) This is precisely the kind of harm the Court 

in Vitel Diagnostics found insufficient to justify the entry of a protective order. See 

Vitel Diagnostics, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147234 at *4-*5 (“The mere fact that the 

production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or 

exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its 

records”) (emphasis added) (quoting Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 

447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)). Moreover, the Sixth Circuit has stressed that 

a corporation’s interest in shielding “prejudicial information” from public view, 

standing alone, cannot justify the sealing of that information. Brown & Williamson, 

710 F.2d at 1180. 

 Accordingly, having reviewed the parties’ written submissions, having 

found that the Motion to Seal can be resolved without oral argument pursuant to 

Local Rule 7.1(f)(2), and having determined that neither Amerisure nor Everest has 

provided any cognizable basis to file the Final Award under seal in its entirety, IT 

IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Amerisure’s Motion to Seal (ECF #19) is 

2:14-cv-13060-MFL-MJH Doc # 26 Filed 10/29/14 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 219
6

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court will transmit to the 

parties and file under seal as Exhibit A to this Order, a highlighted version of the 

Final Award. The highlights represent those portions of the Final Award that the 

parties are authorized to file under seal. In all subsequent filings, the parties shall 

file under seal those (1) portions of the Final Award the Court has highlighted and 

redacted, and (2) portions of any papers identifying the third parties included in the 

Court’s redactions. The parties shall not file under seal any other submission 

without further order of this Court.

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: October 29, 2014 

 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on October 29, 2014, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113

2:14-cv-13060-MFL-MJH Doc # 26 Filed 10/29/14 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 220