Ohio Supreme Court to decide unsealing of Gibson evidence

The Ohio Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case seeking to unseal evidence in a separate lawsuit filed by Gibson’s Bakery versus Oberlin College.

On Aug. 25, Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor announced that after one month in mediation, the case would return to its regular docket.

The lawsuit filed July 15 by Cleveland ABC affiliate WEWS and others against Lorain County Common Pleas Judge John R. Miraldi, asked the High Court to unseal photos of Facebook posts made by Allyn D. Gibson that were submitted

into evidence in the 2019 trial in Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College, but never introduced during the trial.

The complaint argued that neither party in the case presented a compelling argument to justify the continued sealing of the Facebook posts that outweighed the public interest.

Allyn Gibson is the son and grandson of the Gibson Bakery owners who were awarded $44 million in damages in 2019 by a Lorain County jury, later reduced on appeal to $35 million.

In a brief opposing the unsealing of the Facebook posts in 2019, attorneys for Gibson’s Bakery argued Gibson is a nonparty to the case and “after suffering three years of defamatory conduct, plaintiffs and ADG (Allyn D. Gibson) are again being subjected to potential embarrassment, ridicule and defamation by Movants (WEWS) who are seeking to unseal inadmissible discovery papers that Defendants (Oberlin College) did not even attempt to introduce as evidence at the trial of this matter.”

The brief argued the request should be denied due to lack of standing, the documents were irrelevant to the case and not entitled to constitutional protections.

Attorney for the Gibsons additionally cited an Ohio Supreme Court decision and noted any decision on unsealing should at a minimum be delayed until the appellate process was completed in the corresponding Gibson’s Bakery v. Oberlin College case.

In denying a motion to unseal the documents in October 2019 and April 2020, Miraldi ruled that the continued restriction of public access was warranted due to a potential risk of injury to persons, individual privacy rights and fairness of the adjudicatory process.

An appeal of the WEWS lawsuit was dismissed by the Ninth District Court of Appeals on June 17 without a hearing.