Shehadeh v. Godinez et al

Filing 56

OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 12/6/2013. If Plaintiff has not already done so, Plaintiff is directed to send his discovery responses to Defense counsel by December 12, 2013. By December 19, 2013, Defendants are directed to info rm the Court whether their motion to compel is moot because Plaintiff has now produced the requested documents. Defendants' motion to stay the dispositive motion deadline on exhaustion is granted, d/e 55 . The dispositive motion deadline on exhaustion is extended to 30 days after the Court rules on the motion to compel. Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is denied, d/e 53 . Plaintiff's motion to file documents under seal is denied, d/e 54 . (MAS, ilcd)

E-FILED

Friday, 06 December, 2013 12:24:21 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
JAMAL SHEHADEH,
Plaintiff,
v.
SALVADOR GODINEZ,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

13-CV-3103

OPINION
Plaintiff moves to file under seal documents responsive to
Defendants' motion to compel. Sealing documents is disfavored
because the public has an interest in court proceedings. See Local
Rule 5.10(A)(2); Citizens First Nat'l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati
Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1999)("[T]he public at large
pays for the courts and therefore has an interest in what goes on at
all stages of a judicial proceeding.); Citizens First National Bank of
Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 944 (7th Cir.
1999)(court must makes its own determination whether good cause
exists for sealing the record). Plaintiff does not adequately explain

Page 1 of 3 

why the documents should be sealed. If Plaintiff is trying to comply
with Defendants' discovery requests, Plaintiff's responses must be
sent to Defense counsel and not filed with the Clerk. See Local
Rule 26.3.
Plaintiff's documents will not be filed under seal. Instead, the
documents will be held in the vault and will not be considered by
the Court. Plaintiff may retrieve the documents if he wishes or
contact the Clerk to have them mailed back to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff also moves for the Court to try to recruit pro bono
counsel for Plaintiff in order to facilitate communication with
potential witnesses who are former or current IDOC inmates.
Plaintiff appears competent to proceed pro se in this case.
Plaintiff's pleadings demonstrate a good command of the applicable
law and an ability to effectively communicate in writing. Plaintiff
has been released from prison, which will make pursuing this case
easier for Plaintiff. Plaintiff also has personal knowledge of many of
the relevant facts. Plaintiff should contact his parole agent and the
warden of the appropriate institution to request permission to
contact current and former inmates, listing the name of each
person and the questions to be asked. If permission is denied,
Page 2 of 3 

Plaintiff may file a motion to compel, setting forth the name of each
inmate or former inmate and the particular questions Plaintiff seeks
to ask said inmates.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) If Plaintiff has not already done so, Plaintiff is directed to
send his discovery responses to Defense counsel by December 12,
2013.
2) By December 19, 2013, Defendants are directed to inform
the Court whether their motion to compel is moot because Plaintiff
has now produced the requested documents.
3) Defendants' motion to stay the dispositive motion deadline
on exhaustion is granted (d/e 55). The dispositive motion deadline
on exhaustion is extended to 30 days after the Court rules on the
motion to compel.
4) Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of counsel is denied
(d/e 53).
5) Plaintiff's motion to file documents under seal is denied
(d/e 54).

ENTERED:

December 6, 2013

FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3