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. 
2 

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. 
3 

SO ORDERED on October 3, 2016. 

s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE