Two bedrock principles of American jurisprudence collide when courts are called upon to decide whether to seal confidential awards that prevailing arbitration parties petition to confirm in court. On the one hand, the strong public policy in favor of arbitration dictates that courts should honor arbitration parties' confidentiality agreements by sealing confidential awards that are the subject of confirmation petitions. On the other hand, the public interest in court proceedings suggests that motions to seal should be infrequently granted. Courts continue to struggle with how to harmonize these two important values when they conflict with each other in actions to confirm confidential arbitration awards. To clarify and improve the law in this area, this article proposes the following rule to guide the adjudication of motions to seal confidential arbitration awards in confirmation actions: deny the motions when the losing arbitration party challenges the underlying award and grant the motions when the award is uncontested. Such a rule would provide arbitration parties with clarity, consistency, and the confidence to submit their confidential disputes to arbitration without risking public disclosure in the event they lose and their adversary initiates a confirmation action. It also would prevent prevailing arbitration parties from misusing the confirmation process to engage in undesirable strategic behavior, and empower arbitration parties to request that their arbitrators issue reasoned awards without fear that those awards will end up in the public domain whenever the prevailing party petitions to confirm them.

中文翻译：

---

在无争议的确认行动中保护机密仲裁裁决

当法院被要求决定是否密封胜诉仲裁方请求在法庭上确认的机密裁决时，美国判例的两个基本原则发生冲突。一方面，支持仲裁的强有力的公共政策要求法院通过密封作为确认请求主题的机密裁决来履行仲裁当事人的保密协议。另一方面，法庭诉讼中的公共利益表明，不应经常批准封印动议。当这两个重要价值观在确认机密仲裁裁决的行动中相互冲突时，法院继续为如何协调这两个重要价值观而苦苦挣扎。为明确和完善这方面的法律，本文提出以下规则来指导在确认诉讼中封存保密仲裁裁决的动议的裁决：败诉方对基础裁决提出异议时驳回动议，裁决无异议时予以准许。这样的规则将为仲裁当事人提供清晰、一致和信心，让他们有信心将他们的机密争议提交仲裁，而不会在他们败诉并且他们的对手发起确认诉讼的情况下面临公开披露的风险。它还可以防止仲裁当事方滥用确认程序来从事不良的战略行为，