10-4164-cv App. of Utica Mutual v. INA Reinsurance
**UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT** 
**SUMMARY ORDER**

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER J** **ANUARY 1,**  **2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY**  **F EDERAL**  **R ULE OF**  **A PPELLATE**  **P ROCEDURE**  **32.1 AND THIS COURT**  **’ S**  **L OCAL**  **R ULE**  **32.1.1. W** **HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE**  **( WITH THE NOTATION**  **“ SUMMARY ORDER**  **”). A**  **PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL**  **.** At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 1 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 2 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 3 New York, on the 15 thday of March, two thousand twelve. 4 5 PRESENT: JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN, 6 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 7 RICHARD C. WESLEY, 8 Circuit Judges

. 9 10 11 APPLICATION OF UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FOR AN ORDER 12 PURSUANT TO C.P.L.R. 7503(b) STAYING ARBITRATION OF A 13 CERTAIN CONTROVERSY AND DISQUALIFYING CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP 14 FROM REPRESENTING INA REINSURANCE COMPANY N/K/A R&Q 15 REINSURANCE COMPANY IN THE ARBITRATION, 16 17 Petitioner-Appellant , 18 19 v. 10-4164-cv 20 21 INA REINSURANCE COMPANY N/K/A R&Q REINSURANCE COMPANY, 22 23 Respondent-Appellee, 24 25 and 26 27 CHADBOURNE & PARKE LLP, 28 29 Respondent. 30 31 32 332 FOR APPELLANT: ROBERT MORROW, Hunton & Williams LLP, New 1 York, NY (Walter J. Andrews, Syed S. 2 Ahmad, Hunton & Williams LLP, McLean, VA, 3 on the brief ) 4 5 FOR APPELLEE: JOHN F. FINNEGAN, Chadbourne & Parke 6 LLP, New York, NY (Philip Goodman, Kate 7 McSweeny, Chadbourne & Parke LLP, 8 Washington, DC, on the brief ) 9 10 Appeal from the United States District Court for the 11 Southern District of New York (Hellerstein, J. ). 12 13 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 14

**AND DECREED**that the judgment of the United States District 15 Court for the Southern District of New York is **AFFIRMED**
. 16 Appellant Utica Mutual Insurance Company (“Utica”) 17 appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court 18 for the Southern District of New York (Hellerstein, J .), 19 denying Utica’s motion to disqualify Chadbourne & Parke LLP 20 ("Chadbourne") as counsel for Appellee INA Reinsurance 21 Company ("R&Q") in an arbitration dispute between Utica and 22 R&Q. Utica also challenges the district court’s discovery 23 prophylaxis, and it’s unsealing of certain confidential, 24 non-privileged information underlying Utica's motion to 25 disqualify Chadbourne. We assume the parties' familiarity 26 with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the 27 issues presented for review. 28 293 The denial of a motion to disqualify counsel is 1 reviewable only for abuse of discretion. Bobal v. 2 Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. , 916 F.2d 759, 764 (2d Cir. 3 1990). In light of the limited facts and issues presented 4 for our review, we find that the district court did not 5 abuse its discretion in denying Utica’s motion to disqualify 6 Chadbourne. In coming to this conclusion, we emphasize that 7 we take no position as to whether the district court should 8 have applied New York State law considering that this 9 proceeding was removed from New York State court and 10 addresses only whether disqualification is appropriate. We 11 also take no position as to whether an ethical wall can be 12 sufficient to rebut the presumption of disqualification of a 13 law firm where the conflicted attorney possesses material 14 information about a former client. See, e.g. , Kassis v. 15 Teacher's Ins. & Annuity Ass’n. , 93 N.Y.2d 611, 616-17 16 (1999). Utica did not raise these issues below or on 17 appeal, and we decline to consider them now in the first 18 instance. 19 Next, we reject Utica’s assertion that the district 20 court’s discovery prophylaxis was “incomplete.” The 21 district court’s discovery prophylaxis was irrelevant to the 224 disqualification motion and was voluntarily accepted by R&Q. 1 Utica has no basis to challenge it on appeal. 2 Finally, the district court did not abuse its 3 discretion in unsealing the record. To determine whether 4 documents should be placed under seal, a court must balance 5 the public's interest in access to judicial documents 6 against the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure. 7 Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga , 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d 8 Cir. 2006). The decision to seal the record “is one best 9 left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a 10 discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts 11 and circumstances of the particular case." Nixon v. Warner 12 Comm., Inc. , 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978). Here, the district 13 court concluded that Utica’s in camera and privileged 14 submissions will remain under seal. The district court did 15 not abuse its discretion in determining that the public’s 16 interest in access to other non-privileged documents 17 outweighed Utica’s privacy interests in keeping those 18 documents sealed. 19 We have considered Utica’s remaining arguments and, 20 after a thorough review of the record, find them to be 21 without merit. 225 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district 1 court should be **AFFIRMED**
. 2 FOR THE COURT: 3 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 4 5 6