Penn State has not turned over any documentation or discovery materials to the lawyers representing a Jerry Sandusky victim, and the lawyers now want a judge to force the university to cooperate in the civil lawsuit.
The lawyers for the young man known as Victim 6 from the Sandusky case filed a motion last week to compel Penn State to provide them with records such as the university police file on the Sandusky investigation in 1998, all the documents that went into the Freeh report and everything that was given to the grand jury investigating Sandusky.
Penn State has objected to turning over the documents, claiming they are protected from disclosure by attorney-client privilege or that the requests are too broad and burdensome.
“PSU’s goal is clear — to prevent John Doe 6 from proceeding in court and most important to begin the healing process,” the man’s lawyer, Jason Penn, wrote in a motion Jan. 2. “Defendants continue, as they have for years, to attempt to obscure the circumstance surrounding John Doe 6’s sexual molestation.”
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to the Centre Daily Times
The young man testified at Sandusky’s trial last summer, saying he was 11 when Sandusky forced him to shower with him after a workout on campus. The young man said it made him feel uncomfortable and that he blocked it from his memory.
The man’s lawyers said their client has suffered “serious physical and psychological harm” and accused Penn State and The Second Mile charity of hiding Sandusky’s behavior.
Penn State has unsuccessfully tried three times to have the cause put on hold; most recently in the fall, when the university asked for a stay on the entire discovery process.
U.S. District Justice Anita Brody, who’s presiding over the case in Philadelphia, said Penn State could ask for a stay on specific discovery requests, though none of those have come across her desk.
The young man’s lawyers want what literally is millions of pieces of documentation.
They asked for the 3.5 million pieces of data and documents that Louis Freeh said were reviewed in his investigation that resulted in his report. They also want the names of all the people Freeh interviewed for his report.
The man’s lawyers have asked for information that’s already been made public in the Freeh report and by the grand jury that investigated conspiracy allegations against three senior university administrators, such as hand-written notes then-vice president Gary Schultz took as he was hearing about the Sandusky incident in May 1998.
The lawyers for the young man also want the police file that resulted from the investigation of that shower incident in 1998.
Penn State has declined to provide it, citing a law that forbids the disclosure of criminal investigative records. But the young man’s lawyers say it’s “nonsensical” that the victim of the crime isn’t allowed to see it.
Sandusky was acquitted of the most serious count, indecent assault, pertaining to the Victim 6 case, but the jury convicted him of corruption of minors, child endangerment and unlawful contact with minors.