Mike McQueary would just like an answer.
Attorneys for the former Penn State assistant football coach filed a motion in his whistleblower lawsuit on Friday, asking the court to decide if the university’s answers were sufficient.
The request from attorneys Elliot Strokoff and Timothy Fleming comes after a second request for admissions in the case was filed in May. The motion asked the university to “admit the truth of the following matters of fact.”
Penn State responded, but McQueary’s camp was not satisfied with some of the answers.
For 12 specific questions related to communications arising from the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal, dating back as far as February 2001, Penn State would not confirm the authenticity of the documents submitted. The answers varied slightly but contained similar language, saying the question was “denied as stated,” and often that the document “speaks for itself.”
Among the points the university did not concede were that attorney Wendell Courtney, of law firm McQuaide Blasko, consulted with then-vice president Gary Schultz about “reporting of suspected child abuse” in February 2001 and the contents of memos from Schultz’s office during that time.
“Any characterization thereof is denied,” Penn State attorneys answered several times in the document.
Strokoff and Fleming asked the court to either deem those answers to be admissions, or to ask Penn State to file amended answers.
Penn State’s responses were consistent with other documents in related cases in Centre County court, Pennsylvania’s higher courts and federally filed cases stemming from the Sandusky incidents. For example, the estate of former Nittany Lions head coach Joe Paterno is suing the university, as well as the NCAA, President Mark Emmert and former executive committee chairman Ed Ray, and that case’s responses are littered with similar legal language.
Penn State officials do not comment on litigation, and a spokeswoman declined to address the motion Friday.