NCAA Narrows Request for Sandusky Accuser Information

After Penn State filed to quash a subpoena from the NCAA for documents related to settlements with individuals who accused Jerry Sandusky of abuse, the college sports governing body says it has narrowed its request to one document and two names.

The NCAA is seeking the information about two people who said they were sexually abused by the former Penn State football assistant coach Sandusky in the 1970s and claim they had told then Penn State head coach Joe Paterno about the allegations. The subpoena came in connection with NCAA’s civil suit with Paterno’s estate, which is suing the NCAA for defamation and commercial disparagement, among other claims.

Penn State objected to the subpoena, stating that turning over settlement documents would violate confidentiality terms and bring unnecessary harm to the accusers. Paterno estate attorney Thomas Weber filed a response on Monday supporting Penn State’s motion to quash the subpoena, stating that the information sought is tangential to the case. ‘In the alternative, if the Court does not quash the subpoena, it should ensure that plaintiffs have an opportunity to fully explore the basis for any third-party allegations that are allowed into the record in this case.’

In a court filing on Monday, NCAA attorney Thomas Scott wrote that the matter can be resolved by Penn State turning over the identity of two individuals, identified as John Doe 150 and John Doe 71, and the deposition John Doe 150 gave in Penn State’s lawsuit with its insurer over who is responsible for $93 million in settlement payments.

‘There can be no question that information about what these individuals may have told Joe Paterno about Sandusky’s abuse in the 1970s is extremely relevant to this case,’ Scott wrote.

He added that if the individuals did in fact tell Paterno in the 1970s, if corroborated, that would support the findings of the university-commissioned report led by Louis Freeh.

The Paterno estate and former assistant coaches are challenging the Freeh report’s findings and the NCAA’s use of them to levy sanctions against Penn State. The university is not a party in the suit.

John Doe 150 said he was 14-years-old when Sandusky allegedly abused him at a football camp in the 1970s and claimed he told Paterno of the abuse. Following the NCAA’s subpoena, his attorneys filed a motion asking specially-presiding Judge John Leete to issue a protective order for any deposition that might be required of their client.

They said their client is not a party in the suit between the Paternos and the NCAA and that his claim was not made until well after the NCAA had issued sanctions in its consent decree with Penn State. They also cited state laws protecting the identity of minor victims of abuse.

State College attorney Andrew Shubin filed a motion to seal a protective order for John Doe 71, who was described in the filing as ‘a 60-year old adult survivor of Jerry Sandusky’s child sexual abuse with significant emergent cardiac issues, and the information contained in the motion implicates serious privacy, confidentiality, anonymity and health related safety concerns.’ The motion also states that John Doe 71 is a State College resident and his spouse is a Penn State employee.

The NCAA first began to pursue the information after two cases came to light in May. One was revealed in an order from a Philadelphia judge in Penn State’s lawsuit with its insurer, Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance (PMA). Glazer wrote: ‘PMA claims Sandusky committed several acts of molestation early in his career at PSU: in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU’s Head Football Coach Joseph Paterno, that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky…’

The other came in a report from CNN, where a man claimed he was assaulted by Sandusky in 1971 and told by Paterno to drop the accusation. The NCAA’s new filing says John Doe 71 is the same man who spoke to CNN.

The NCAA says it wants John Doe 150’s deposition and if sufficient nothing else would be required of him. If further discovery is needed, he would not necessarily have to sit for another deposition, or if he did, would do so with a number of restrictions to protect his privacy.

John Doe 71 has not, to the NCAA’s knowledge, given a deposition, but like John Doe 150, may possibly be able to answer written questions or sit for a highly restricted deposition.

Scott further wrote that the narrowed request places no burden on Penn State, as it asks for information which he says the university has in its possession and could turn over immediately.