Sobin v. Superintendent

Filing 33

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING RULING ON 32 MOTION Requesting Ruling on Above Case/Cause filed by Gregory D Sobin; The Court ORDERS Respondent to either file a motion to unseal the sealed documents (DE 27) or file a brief explaining why they should rem ain sealed. The Court CAUTIONS Respondent that if no response is filed by November 14, 2016, the documents (DE 27) will be unsealed and a copy will be sent to Sobin. Response to be filed by 11/14/2016. (cc: Sobin) Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 10/3/16. (mlc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
Gregory D. Sobin,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 3:15-CV-48 JVB

Superintendent,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court sua sponte to reconsider the order (DE 23) granting the
Respondent leave to file documents under seal.
When the Court entered that order, the Court anticipated that the documents would need
to be sealed because the disclosure of their contents could be harmful to other individuals or
could compromise the security of the facility. See Henderson v. United States Parole Comm’n,
13 F.3d 1073, 1078 (7th Cir. 1994) and Wells v. Israel, 854 F.2d 995, 999-1000 (7th Cir. 1988).
However, “the 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 Nat. Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati
Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1999). Therefore, “very few categories of documents are
kept confidential once their bearing on the merits of a suit has been revealed.” Baxter Int’l, Inc.
v. Abbott Labs., 297 F.3d 544, 546 (7th Cir. 2002).
If the sealed documents could be harmful to other individuals or compromise the security
of the facility, then they will remain sealed. But otherwise, they need to be unsealed.
The Respondent has submitted two documents. Both are stamped confidential, but that
stamp does not resolve the issue.

The first document (DE 27-1 at 2) is a copy of the Conduct Report. It is unclear why this
document is confidential or how its public disclosure could be harmful to others or compromise
institutional security. Sobin filed a copy of this same document (DE 12-1 at 11) with his
amended petition. Respondent filed another copy (DE 26-1) and Respondent’s brief quoted the
substance of the document (DE 26 at 2).
The second document (DE 27-1 at 2-5) is a copy of the letter Sobin sent to a guard. Based
on this letter, Sobin was charged with threatening the guard. Its contents are central to resolving
whether there is some evidence that he threatened the guard. Sobin admits (DE 29-2 at 28) he
wrote the letter. Sobin states he was not given a copy of it during the disciplinary process, but the
Respondent argues (DE 26 at 10) that “[t]he letter at issue was attached to the Report of Conduct
and was incorporated into it.” Either way, it is unclear to the Court how the public disclosure of
the contents of the letter could be harmful to others or compromise institutional security.
In addition, Sobin filed a motion asking the Court to rule on his habeas corpus petition.
(DE 32.) Clearly he is dissatisfied because this case was not expedited. Certainly this case is
important, but all cases filed in this Court are important. This is not the only pending case. It
takes time to accurately review and justly rule on each filing. Doing that is delayed by
unnecessary motions like this one. If Sobin wanted to know the status of this case, he merely
needed to send the clerk a letter asking for a docket sheet.
For these reasons, the Court DENIES the motion for ruling (DE 32). The Court
ORDERS Respondent to either file a motion to unseal the sealed documents (DE 27) or file a
brief explaining why they should remain sealed. The Court CAUTIONS Respondent that if no
response is filed by November 14, 2016, the documents (DE 27) will be unsealed and a copy will
be sent to Sobin.

2

SO ORDERED on October 3, 2016.
s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3