Judge John Leete thinks Penn State’s appeal of one his rulings is unfounded, and filed an opinion last week explaining why.
In an opinion filed on Nov. 29, but made available to the public on Friday, Leete reaffirms his September decision that Penn State can not use certain legal tools to avoid releasing communications between the university and the law firm of Louis Freeh.
In September, Leete found that documents gathered during the course of the Freeh investigation could not be protected by arguments of attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. This decision was based on the argument that these documents were not created for the purposes of seeking legal advice or preparing for litigation.
He ordered Penn State to turn over a large number of these documents, but the university has appeal the decision to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
This debate comes out of the defamation lawsuit filed in Centre County Court against the NCAA by the Paterno Estate and former Penn State assistant football coaches Jay Paterno and William Kenney. Penn State is a nominal defendant to the suit, which has led the university to its current legal battle.
In Leete’s latest opinion, he refers back to his earlier ruling and continues to assert that, not only does Penn State lack legal standing to assert privilege, the university also lacks legal standing to appeal the judge’s decision.
“This issue is not properly before the Superior Court,” Leete writes.
POPULAR STORIES:
Penn State Hockey: Nittany Lions Continue Road Trip With Wisconsin Series
Inmate Convicted of Raping Prison Worker Appealing Case to Superior Court
Corman Will Not Require Triponey to Testify in Lawsuit Against NCAA
School District, Parks Authority Reach Parking Agreement After Contentious Debate
Mike McQueary Asks Judge to Force Penn State to Turn Over Documents
