Exhibit 3 Petri Ste ba eFC 13110319500128 Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111033MEYER ¢ DARRAGH Nb BUCKLER BEBENEK & ECK, PL.L.C. rem 2 fm Altorneys-at-Law Pn U.S. Steel Tower + Suite 4850 + ‘600 Grant Street « Pittsburgh, PA 15219 swww.ndbbe com Phone: (412) 261-6600 + Fax: (412) 471-2754 Evie, Anderson Direet Dik 412) 55-7071 ‘tory ata smart candeson@ndbbe co Leased in PA, WY & OF October 5, 2015 Stoven J. Engelmyer, Esquire Kicinbard, LLC One Libe:ty Place 46" Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Re: Penn State Matter Our File No.: Engel-119756 Dear Mr. Engeimyer: At your request, | have undertaken a review of numerous materials you provided me concerning the claims and the settlement of those claims arising out the Jerry SanduskyiPenn State matter, | have reviewed the complete Freeh Report and the individual files of those who settled their claims with Penn State. | have also conducted background research and have reviewed many of the files which | have handled over the past several years. You have asked me to review the individual cases and the ‘accompanying information in order to provide you with my opinion concerning the value of the cases and whether there are certain defenses, and in particular, the statute of limitations defense, which could have been raised in some of the matters. ‘As way of background, | have been an attorney licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania since 1973. | am also licensed in the State of Ohio and the State of West Virginia. Our firm has been involved in representing religious institutions, organizations and transportation entities as well as private corporations in matters arising out of claims of sexual abuse for many years, preceding when | started with Meyer Darragh in 1978. | personally have been handling cases involving allegations of sexual abuse for the past 15 years and have represented and continue to represent religious organizations, dioceses, transportation companies and individuals who have become involved in civil matters arising out of claims of sexual abuse. Our firm represented the diocese in Hutchison v. Luddy, which a partner of mine tried starting in 1994. That particular case went to the Superior Court on three occasions and to the Supreme Court on two occasions. | was involved in the last stages of that prasassas) Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111033Steven J. Engelmyer, Esquire Page 2 case when it was in the Superior Court and | was involved in the final settlement of the matter. | have represented religious institutions and private companies where there have been groups of individuals who have made claims arising out of the alleged abuse by one particular individual as well as groups of claimants arising out of alleged sexual abuse by several individuals who were acting as employees of the organization or corporation. | have settled sexual abuse claims on a group basis as well as an individual basis and continue to do such. Iwas representing a client concerning multiple claims of sexual abuse by several different employees in the early 2000 timeframe when the seminal cases of Meehan v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 870 A.2d, 912 (Pa. super. 2005), petition for allocator denied 884 Pa, 717, 885 A.2d 985 (2005), Baselice v. Franciscans Friars Assumption, BVM Providence, Inc., 879 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2005), and Lazarski v. Archdiocese oF Philadelphia, 926 A.2d 457 (Pa. Super. 2007) were decided. Those are the three cases which discussed at length the statute of limitations defense in sexual abuse cases. My research has indicated that there have been no appellate cases which have reversed or in any way modified the decisions of the Superior Court in those cases. Meehan was decided by the Superior Court in March of 2005 and the plaintiffs petitioned the ‘Supreme Court for allocator which the Supreme Court denied in September of 2005. Re-argument was denied in November of 2005. in Baselice, the Superior Court handed down its decision in July of 2005. Finally, Lazarski was decided by the Superior Court in July of 2007. Those three cases address the application of the two year statute of limitations. In 2002, the Pennsylvania legislature amended the statute of limitations for individuais entitled to bring a civil action arising out of childhood sexual abuse to 12 years afer attaining the age of 18. Although the Pennsylvania judiciary has refused to recognize the doctrine of repressed memory, the legislature tacitly adopted such by extending the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse to 12 years once an individual reaches the age of majority. It has been stated on repeated occasions that in evaluating the defense, the Pennsyivania courts have a strong policy of favoring the strict application of the statute of limitations. See, E.J.M. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 424 Pa, Super. 449, 622 A.2d 1388 (1993), In every one of the cases that | reviewed, the individual was aware of the abuse which was being perpetrated, the identity of the perpetrator, and the identity of the employer or entity with which the perpetrator was affliated. Under Pennsylvania law, neither the discovery rule nor the doctrine of fraudulent concealment would have been a viable exception to the statute of limitation defense. Being that the statute of limitations is a policy which is strongly favored by the Pennsylvania courts and is given strict application, any exception to the rule is extremely limited. E..M. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, supra, 424 Pa. super. 449 at 450, 622 A.2d 1388 at 1304 (1993) wravaase.s; Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111033Steven J. Engelmyer, Esquire Page 3 The rationale of the decisions in Meehan, Baselice and Lazerski has not been affected by the extended childhood sexual abuse statute. Therefore, if a lawsuit had not been initiated by the time an individual reached 30 years of age, the statute of limitations under Pennsylvania law would be an absolute defense. The stalute is not retroactive so as to revive a claim for which the statute had already expired, With respect to my analysis of the individual claims, | have analyzed each case based on all of the information which was provided to me. | have provided a summary of the important information pertaining to each claim and then my analysis of the claim and my opinion conceming the settlement value based on my background and experience. Where | believe that the statute of imitations was an affirmative defense, | state such and do not provide an opinion conceming the settlement value of the case because the statute was a complete defense. In my analysis, | consider the strengths and weaknesses of each case. Since all of the cases involve claims for emotional and psychological damages, background information and verification of the claims is essential when determining the settlement value, Some of the comments in the individual summaries are a reflection of my approach to the analysis of the case for settlement purposes. The absence of documentation was an important part of my evaluation. In many of the individual cases, there was no signed affidavit, statement or other means of personal verification of the information which I reviewed. The documentation provided in almost all of the case included a report from Finberg & Rozen. However, the reports were not signed by individual claimants. It appears as though Penn State made litle effort, if any, to verify the credibility of the claims of the individuals Where documentation was provided, such as medical records and reports, psychological evaluations and therapy records, | gave them due consideration. | also took into consideration the evaluator and the purpose for which the evaluation was performed. Obviously, the analysis of a claim involving sexual abuse is multifaceted and since damages are not empirical, such as in most personal injuries cases, the more information that is available the more complete the analysis, During the course of my analysis of the individual cases, | had an opportunity to review information concerning Penn State's evaluations. Generally speaking, it appears as though the amounts of the settlement were high and in some cases extremely high. Not having the benefit of knowing what analytical process was employed by the evaluato's, | do not know why so many of the cases were settled for such high sums of money. Based on my experience, | believe there was a component of potential punitive damages which factored into Penn State's evaluations. Also present in the analytical process may have been a concern about publicity and a desire to resolve the matters very quickly. p1214358.1) Case ID: Control No. 131103195 15111033Steven J. Engelmyer, Esquire Page 4 | only provide what my opinion is concerning the settlement value, My analysis, and opinions are based on my background, education, training and experience as a tral attorney and are set forth with a reasonable degree of certainty. IF additional information is provided for any particular claim, | would welcome the opportunity to review the additional information and, if appropriate, alter my opinion concerning the value of the particular case. ‘Very truly yours, vi Faca a pEashersom— ENA/emr (1214288. Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111033ERIC N. ANDERSON ATTORNEY AT LAW MEYER, DARRAGH, BUCKLER, BEBENEK & ECK, PLLC US STEEL TOWER, SUITE 4850 600 GRANT STREET PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 REPORT OF ERIC N. ANDERSON, ESQUIRE In Re: Penn State Settlements October 5, 2015 reves) Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111033Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release signed his Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release on March 1, 2014. The amount of the settlement is $250,000, Confidential Deposition of John Doe — July 8, 2015 ‘The deposition was taken in the case of PMA v. Pennsylvania State University and John Doe A. which was consolidated with cases entitled Penn State University v. PMA at Civil Action Nu. 3195 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County and the lawsuit entitled Penn State University v. PMA No. 3197 of the November term 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. John Doe was not represented by counsel. On behalf of PMA, Paul Cagney conducted the direct examination. Also present was counsel for Penn State University, Michael John Miguel of the Law Firm Kasowitz, Benson, Torres and Friedman, LLP located in Los Angeles, CA. John Doe lives in and he is @ landscaper/groundskeeper. He was born on 1981 and is presently 34 years old. John Doe testified that he was abused by Sandusky. John Doe changed his name - John Doe attended High ‘School and participated in activities relating to the Second Mile with friends. Mr. Gagne questioned John Doe based on a letter from John Doe's attomey, Mr Gagne asked John Doe whether the statement in letter was accurate and John Doe replied yes. One statement is that Sandusky entered the hot tub with John Doe, sat down next to him, put his hand inside John Doe's shorts and rubbed his, leg and penis. That incident occurred in 1995 or 1996 when John Doe was in high school. John Doe stated that there were occasions when Sandusiy put his arm around John Doe when they were working oul and there were numerous occasions when they were at the pond “where he would have me masturbate him." Exactly when that ‘occurred in terms of the hot tub incident was uncertain. There were occasions when Sandusky would take showers with John Doe. However, other people would be in the shower as well, Sandusky gave John Doe shoes, a sweat suit and took him places, such as movies, for ice crearn and took him to basketball games al the Bryce Jordan Center and to the Penn State football games on campus. There were sleepovers at a “cabin” and the ‘mansion’ with other Second Mile kids around, John Doe stated that he told his guidance counselor and mentioned to his caseworker what had happened with Sandusky. He did not tell his mother. He told his father in 2011 when everything became public. John Doe stated that he observed other kids molested by Sandusky. They occurred during sleepovers when he would watch Sandusky lay on this one female and grind with her. ‘When the incident occurred in the hot tub, there were other Second Mile kids in the hot tub. He does not know if anyone saw Sandusky touch his genitals. When that (Praneroan) 19 Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111033occurred got out of the hot tub. John Doe refers to a ‘cabin’ where he would have to masturbate Sandusky. John Doe testified that Sandusky would have John Doe masturbate him after he got done with the girl in the room. He observed Sandusky having intercourse with a girl or it looked like he was grinding with her. She did not five any clothes on. The next day John Doe talked to his guidance counselor. This was the day after the incident in the hot tub. John Doe told the guidance counselor at the Second Mile, however, the guidance counselor did not believe him. This was about the same time he told his caseworker. The deposition concluded at the request of John Doe. He no longer wanted to continue the deposition without representation by counsel. Letter from to Amy C. Foerster at Saul Ewing Dated August 7, 2012 states in his correspondence that he represents His date of birth is 1981 was introduced to Sandusky at football games and was brought to some “mansion” for a party in either State College or Bellefonte. Sandusky entered the hot tub with him and put his hand inside shorts and rubbed his leg and penis. had not spoken to anyone about this until 2014 when everything became public about Sandusky. Conclusion The initial claim was made by correspondence from dated August 7, 2072. At that time, was 31 years old. The statute of limitations on his ciaim would have expired on 2001, before the minor's sexual assault statute of limitations was amended and went into effect. The statute of limitations was a complete defense to the claim ol There is no question that knew that he wes abused, he knew who his abuser was and he knew Sandusky's affiliation was with the Second Mile Program and Penn State University, Therefore, the discovery rule or the doctrine of fraudulent concealment would not be available to to avoid the application of the statute of limitations as a complete defense to his claim. (Piz00709.) 20 Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111033Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release signed his Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release on August 26, 2013 for the amount of $6,500,000. Confidential intake Questionnaire Feinberg & Rozen Claims Resolution Process was born on 1987 and will turn 30 years old on 2017. He presently resides in He claims that he suffered several incidents of sexual abuse by Sandusky. The abuse includes multiple instances of genilal contact, and forced oral sex, at Sandusky's house, in Sandusky's car and in a ‘swimming pool at Penn State University. There are no witnesses that are identified however, itis reported that an individual by the name of foster mother at the time of the incident, may have information concerning the abuse provided specific and graphic testimony at the time of the criminal trial and Sanduisky was convicted of the crimes of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault and unlawful contact with minors, corruption of minors and endangering the welfare of children with respect to Sandusky’s contact with Mr. Rittmeyer. ___ 5 Identified in the proceedings as Victim foster mother corroborated his testimony and she also testified at the trial ‘came into contact with Sandusky through the Second Mile program in which he participated as a result of “low self-esteem.” Sandusky gave gifts, including Penn State memorabilia and took him to Penn State football games. Mr. was 12 of 43 years old when Sandusky began sexually abusing him. The abuse allegedly began after the Spring of 1998, when Sandusky was discovered having improper relationships with minor boys in the shower and the abuse continued until late 1999 or early 2000. The abuse occurred in Sandusky's basement where was forced to perform oral sex on Sandusky and Sandusky performed oral sex on Mr. \ Sandusky stimulated Mr. anus and masturbated with Mr. In the pool at Penn Stale University, Sandusky fondled Mr genitals. Sandusky also fondled Mr. when in Sandusky's vehicle. Mr. was afraid to reveal the abuse because of fear for personal, social and reputational and professional consequences. \tis stated in the Feinberg report that has tried to lead a normal life but is tortured and haunted by the years of abuse he suffered. That would be for approximately three years. It is stated that continues 1 suffer from physical, psychological and emotional harm, including a loss of the ability to trust people and to form intimate relationships. It is also stated that has suffered diminution in his earning capacity including losing the opportunity to attend college. He is presently employed as z ora company. He has suffered (1206708. 54 Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111033from problems relating to drug and alcohol abuse which lead to criminal activity and that has had an impact on his employability Contained in the materials is a letter from to dated June 28, 2013. Presumably is attorney performed a psychiatric evaluation of Mr at the request of counsel. The purpose of the evaluation was to determine if Mr. suffers from any psychiatric illness or emotional condition and if so, to what extent itis related to the abuse. It is opinion that suffers {rom psychiatriclemotional conditions directly related to his sexual abuse and his condition is permanent. It is noted by that this isa preliminary report and he will spend more time reviewing records. It is reported that met Sandusky in 1997 at the Second Mile camp. The first instance of abuse took place at the Sandusky residence in about 1998. On that occasion, Sandusky would wrestle with and then pull down his shorts and performed oral sex of, There was a second occasion where the same thing happened. This same scenario was repeated on numerous occasions. When they were in Sandusky's automobile, Sandusky would place his hand on leg and then eventually in pants and fondle him. It is reported’ that and Sandusky engaged in mutual oral sex on each other perhaps 10 or more times. It was in approximately 2000 that told his foster mother he did not want to go to the Second Mile camp and he did not want to see Sandusky. vas embarrassed and frightened to speak to the grand jury but he did Such. It was also very difficult for him to testify in the criminal trial reports that life was completely changed and claims that he became rebellious and tater tured to drugs around the age of 15. stated that he does not know his biological father and apparently has been in foster homes. He also lived with his on occasion. In school he repeated the grade and left school in the grade, however, he did receive his GED. has a number of criminal convictions, He is now married and has a young child \ has worked as an technician and Cleaning industrial and business locations. However, he is presently unemployed. Mr. reports that he is suffering from depression and anxiety. He has had trouble sleeping, and experiences nightmares as a result of his contact with Sandusky. He has had flashback experiences and admits to being cranky and irtitable. He appears to be one of average intelligence although he may have a learning disability. He has problems concentrating and paying attention which believes are longstanding but worsened by depression. The diagnosis provided by is post-traumatic stress disorder, severe, and he is experiencing moderate to severe impairment in social and Occupational functioning. The abuse which Mr suffered at the hands of Sandusky make him angi Purposes of avoiding intrus rebellious and resistant to authority. It led to drug use for thoughts and flashbacks, nightmares and anxiety. The 1298703.) 55 Case ID; Control No. 131103195 15111033conclusion jaims were Nt pared by the State of imitations, THER, very litle corroborating sion of the events ‘ae did testify at minal trial and Ps re the grand NY rroporation of HS Fenony would Be ine verdiat which f > Sausky gulty of voluntary deviate 5 ntercourses separ ; ar gcsault, uniewtl) rtact with MIO ors jnd endanaenind sifare of cnisren. ie document 9 al trauma ane TY psyenological me gnat injures: TM ceport of ‘was PI at uest of counse! on s! 'e occasion game from 2 sours ‘packground ‘and apparent notional ravioral provers pefore et Sandusky." a be important SS more invorral Ping the dames? aspect Of mem. However: B puse whi arptained, and NE gmited inforrnation Joncerniing 9 ris. clams: ‘believe gment vatue ofS aay $2 mition doves proto) 56 Case ID qa Control No. 151Exhibit 4 Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111033Confidential - John Doe 200 20 a 12 13 14 15 16 ay 1a 19 20 2. 22 23 24 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, vs. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND JOHN DOE A, Defendants. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, vs. PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS! ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant . THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, vs. PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS’ ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CONFIDENTIAL DEPOSITION OF JOHN DOE 200 duly 8, 2015 CIVIL ACTION JANUARY TERM 2012 NO. 02416 CIVIL ACTION NOVEMBER TERM 2013 NO. 03195 CIVIL ACTION NOVEMBER TERM 2013 NO. 03197 Golkow Technologies, Inc. Case HFSP31'103195 Control No.: 15111033Confidential - John Doe 200 a 2 3 IX a 5 Q. 6 7 A. ce Q. 2 10 A. ee Q. - a2 43 14 A. as Oo Now, it says here in 16 Mr: _ 4 letter: In he. 4~ i7 that would be you.-+ -attended High 18 School and participated in ‘activities 19 relating to the Second Mile with friends. 20, Is that ‘accurate? ar A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. How did you become 23. introduced to the Second Mile? 28 A. Through the school. I was Golkow Technologies, Inc CaseH#81 21903195 Control No.; 15111033Confidential - John Doe 200 1 And that's where a lot of abuse had happened. 2 We would have pizza parties at, like, 3 mansions, and then most of our activities 4 were at the Bryce Jordan Center. It was 5 brand new. 6 We were hanging out at the 7 Bryce Jordan Center upper box offices all the 8 time. We would be sitting at basketball 9 games up in the stands, far away from other 10 people. We would be -- you know, everybody qi would be down here; we would be up in the 12 corner. Or if we weren't there, we'd be in 13° the box seats or whatever they call them. a Q. About how many kids would 18 usually be in this group? 16 A. It depended. It was as little 17 as just me, and it was as big as sometimes we 18 had -- I would put a quick number of maybe , 20 Q. Was it just boys or were there 21 girls mixed in? 22 A. There was girls and boys. 23 Q. Okay. And how did you first a meet -- and I don't -- I'm not talking about Golkow Technologies, Inc. ea Control No.: 15111033ero wouoeees 200 a1 -_gonn Doe S ya you first ames. HOW a eohing Your him wal al interact on or meett 2 have person giyet happen? yw. Sandusky? How: aid that 4 Be werd, ie first pappened at-2 naa a dock» 7 ante say exactly 5 pond, and it 6 where - 7 woods « a towards “the evening, and ¥ 9 actually another female That was phe first ag ime Likeore irowas Like an intimate, more alone gituation- pened? pnd what hap) Oe okay pia you talk tO im? Be well, mean, 7 was kind of ike, shy. 7 ajan't talk tO pam much. Bat ne was very, YOU now, aggressive type ~~ type guy: Q. go he was VerY talkative? A Wo, not ever qmch so talkative g talking with He pasically was the gitl- Q. okay- Re you know, he calked to me. He pasically would ask me questions Like, come — Cas HIT FOSS _ ne Control No: 151110: 23 24 Golkow TechnologiesConfidential - John Doe 200 1 find out what you know. 2 A. Most of my stuff that I know is 3. basically like by sight and by personal, you 4 know, stuff. 5 Go Okay. 6 A. The conversations is hard for 7 me to recall, you know. 8 Q. Okay. Now I'm going’ to read 3 from your lawyer's letter, and now I'm going 10 to ‘Start to get into things ‘that (mr. Sandusky n1 did. And again, we're going to keép this 12 record ¢onfidential, but! Ido need. to ask’you cad about these things. a4 Tt says: He -+\ again ‘that 18 means you == John. Doe 200, was introduced to 1s Sandusky at football. games and was brought to 17 gomé ‘mansion ata party in either state 18 College or Bellefonte where Sandusky entered 18 thé hot’ tub-with ‘him, sat down next to him, 20 put his hand inside his ‘shorts, and rubbed 21 his’ leg and penis. 22 Is that: accurate? 23 AL It's accurate, but it: makes it 24 sound like it's all the very first time we Golkow Technologies, Inc. Case HF 31103195 Control No.: 15111033Confidential - John Doe 200 2 had met’. 2 oO. Okay. So‘you had inet him 3 previously at the pond, you just told me: 4 AL Yeah. 5 Q. okay: 6 AL This is -- this is kind of 7 stuff that happened, you know, later on, kind & of like -+ you: know? This sounds like this 8 was like’ the first time I met him -- 10 oO. Right. an A. 2S and it boom, boom, boom, you 12 know, happened, This is’ a’long,. drawn-out a3 year process. 14 The correct part about ~you 1s know, the penis part, that patt is correct. is Q. Okay. wv A. Tt was not, you know, that same 18 day I met him. 19 Q. Ivgot it. I got it: 20 Now,, by the way; according. to 21 the letter, this happened in, around 1995 or 22-1996. That. seem right to you? Be A. Yeah. al Q. Okay. And that's when you were. Golkow Technologies, Inc Case A4 03195 Control No.: 15111033confidential - John Doe 200 2 in high school? 2 A. Okay. 7 Q okay: L'masking. That is 4 when you'were in high school? 5 AL Yes. 6 Q: okay. So you had met~-- prior 7 tO thigsineident in’ the hot:tub,, you had met 8 Mr. Sandusky on several occasions? 8 AL Mim rim. 10 Q: Okay: That's.a "yes"? a AL ves. 12 Q. Okay. So he didn't touch you 13 this way the first time he met you, right? Mu AL correct. 15 Q- Okay. Now, again, 16 Mr letter says that this occurred a at a party im a:mansion in either State 18 College. or Bellefonte. 19 gitting here-today with me, can 20 -you be “any more: specific? 2a Do you know for sure whether 22 this was.on the campus or Bellefonte or 24 somewhere else? 24 A. That's so tough for me because Golkow Technologies, Inc. Case tF1391103195 Control No.: 15111033Confidential - John Doe 200 1 -T didn't have. much sense of direction back 2 then, Honestly. I-know when. I've gone back 3 to Pennsylvania‘just to visit’ family) it's 4 tough for me to even drive the streets 5 because Twas used to sitting in the 6 passenger “seat. for so long that’ -- and I 7 didn't have my license’ back then. And it's ® so tough for. me to try to differentiate 9 where -- what directions we went, you’ know: 20 Q. Okay. If you don't know, you 11 don't know. 2 Before this incident in the hot 13 tub, had Mr. Sandusky touched you at all? 4 And I mean even, you know, an arm around the as back, shoulder, or anything. Had he touched 1s you at all prior to that? wv A. Yes. 18 On Okay. Tell me about that. 1s ie Well, there was, you know, 20 numerous occasions where he would be putting 21 his arms around me while we were working out. 22° There were numerous occasions while we were 23° at the pond where he would have me masturbate | 24 him. Golkow Technologies, Inc. Casett#4 31903195 Control No.: 15111033Confidential - John Doe 200 2 A. Mm-mm, What I had done at crat_| 2 time was I had got out of the hot tub -- 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. -- which makes more sense with 5 this letter because it was a chance to where 6 {wasn't completely just isolated with 7 Sandusky whenever his molestation was going ‘on. ‘It was a chance for me to get out and go ° walk inside. And that's what I had done when 10 that hot tub incident. ad Q. Okay. So that's the hot tub ca incident. B And you said there were. other 14 occasions whete he had you put’ lotion on his a5 penis: or +- and masturbate. him; is that 16 correct? wv AL ves. 18 Q. Okay: How many times? 19 And you don't have to be exact, 20 put roughly “how many times did that “happen? 21 A. It’ got repetitive over. the 22 weekends. with the same girl and mein a room. 23 And I'll be honest, her and-I were the two 24 quietest. We had no family around. The Golkow Technologies, Inc Caseltt#4 34103195 Control No.: 15111033Confidential - John Doe 200 1 foster homes where we were living weren't the 2 best. So it was kind of like we would -- you 3 know, I know for me it was’ kind of like T 4 went by-any, you know, older.person. I kind 5 of felt like. they had authority-over me. LD QO. Mm- hmm. 7 A. So,'T mean, it)-- I hadino.<- 7 8 guess you could say I was kind of just like 9 quiet and shy because’I really didn't know 10 who to talk to when there was nobody around. nu Q. So when he would do this, where 12 would it happen, when he would: have’ you pat 13 lotion on him ahd masturbate him? a4 AL It would happen at this cabin 15 where. the pond was. And it couldn't -- it 16 might not. have been, “you'know, a cabin. I 17 just remember, you know; the bedroom. I 18 remember the pond and the canoe. 19 I kind of. want to say that ap there was-all.-- like another house even 21 closé by. Even the mansion, I know there was 22 a’mansion, and then there was like a separate 23. building in the back. So my sense of 24 awareness of what everything was around isn't Golkow Technologies, Inc. ° Case991 47103195 Control No.: 15111033Confidential - John Doe 200 1 there today. 2 Q@: Okay: And you"re not sure 3 whether this was on the campus or somewhere 4 else? 5 RY Yeah, because I'm not sure of 6 what the grounds are for the camptis. 7 Q. Okay. I just want to be real 8 clear. When he would have you masturbate 9 him, this girl was in the room? 20 A. Mm-hmm. It was after he got 11 done with her. And it was almost like a 12 Bengay lotion. I mean, it had a very 13° distinct smell. uM Q. Did you see him have 15 intercourse with this girl? 16 A. Yeah. I would say -- to me 17 then, it looked like he was grinding with 18 her. 18 Q. Well, did she have clothes on? 20 A. No. ee Q. And then after he was done with 22 her, he would have you perform this service 23° for him? 24 A. Yes. Golkow Technologies, Inc. Case #24 4103105 Control No.: 15111033Confidential - John Doe 200 1 CERTIFICATE 3 7 RPR, RMR, CRR, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public 4 within and for the ~ do hereby certify that prior to the commencement of the 5 examination, JOHN DOE 200 was duly sworn by me to testify to the truth, the whole truth, : and nothing but the truth. I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is a verbatim transcript of the ® testimony as taken stenographically by and before me at the time, place, and on the date 9 hereinbefore set forth, to the best of my ability. 10 I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I am 11 neither a relative nor employee nor attorney nor counsel of any of the parties to this 12 action, and that I am neither a relative nor employee of such attorney or counsel, and 13 that I am not financially interested in the action. 4 1s uy 18 19 Notary Public in and for the 20 My Commission Expires: July 30, 2016 au Dated: July 21, 2015 22 23 24 Golkew Technologies, Inc. Case##5141403195 Control No.: 15111033FILED 07 JAN 2016 01:06 pn Civil Administration L. OWENS KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP By: Jerold Oshinsky, Esq. Linda Kornfeld, Esq Natasha Romagnoli, Esq. Admitted Pro Hac Vice 1633 Broadway New York, NY 10019 (212) 506-1700 joshinsky@kasowitz.com Ikomfeld@kasowitz.com rnromagnoli@kasowitz.com NARDUCCTI, MOORE, FLEISHER, ROEBERG & WOLFE LLP By: Patrick J. Wolfe, Jr., Esq. PA Attorney LD. No. 80871 589 Skippack Pike, Suite 300 Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 19422 (215) 628-3939 piwoli@bluebelllaw.com THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, NOVERMBER TERM 2013 CIVIL ACTION NO. 03195 PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS’) ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY.) } MOTION CONTROL No. Defendant, 15111034 } ) PRAECIPE TO SUPPLEMENT/ATTACH ‘TO THE PROTHONOTARY: ‘The documents being requested to be attached are requested to be filed under seal in accordance with this Court’s December 4, 2015 Order, a copy of which immediately follows this Praecipe. Kindly supplement The Pennsylvania State University’s Opposition to Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Control No. 15111034, with the unredacted Answer, Opposition Memorandum of Law and Exhibits 3, 6, 7 and 8, all of which should be filed under seal. Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111034Exhibit 3 Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111034ah he * f * PMA coMPaANIEs. Member of ls Repub Companies eg 300 Senty Pariwoy ‘Sallyanne Donovan, Esquire Bie Bel, PA 194220754 Manage, Corporate Claims March 12,2014 Margaret Janowiak Claim Specialist The Penasylvania State University 227 West Beaver Avenue Suite 103 Rider Building ‘University Park, PA 16802 RE: Gerald Sandusky — ‘Dear Ms, Janowiak: ‘This is in reference to your Soptember 30, 2013, letter on behalf of The Pennsylvania State University PSU"), in which yew make a demand to PMA for $5,798,793.80 in defense and Jndemnity with respect to the claim of” ‘under PMA's March 1, 1997- March 1, 1998 Policy (the 1997 Policy”. We previously sent you a reservation of rights with respect to the Claim on ‘November 26, 2012. This will constitute PMA's denial of coverage with respect to the Claim. As explained more fully below, it is PMAA's position that there is no coverage available for defense or indemnity costs under any lsblity policy issued by PMA to PSU with respect to the allegations of the *Ciaim, This determization is based on information you heve provided regarding th Claim. Morcover, PMA hereby reserves its rights to apply any of the terms, provisions or conditions or exclusions set forth in any ofthe policies issued by PMA to PSU, including without Fimitaton the Commercial General Lisblity Coverage Form and/or any endorseratnts ot declarations, and to review snd reevaluate the coverage determinations herein as facts and circumstances may warrant ‘THE 1998 POLICY IS TRIGGERED BY THE CLAIM ‘The PMA Policy effective March 1, 1998 to March 1, 1999 (the “1998 Policy”), is triggered by an occurrence during the policy period, This determination is based on information ‘yuu have provided conceming the Claim, specifically, 's Confidential Intake ‘Questionnaire (as well as his testimony in the Sandusky criminal tral, ia whick stated that be met Sandusky in 1997 but that frst incident of his abuse by Sandusky commenced the Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111034Margaret Janowiak March 12, 2014 Page 2 following Spring placing the incident within the March 1, 1998 -1999 policy year. The potential trigge: of insurance coverage under the 1998 Policy is the happening of an “occurrence” within the meaning of the Policy which takes place in the poliey period. The Insuring Agreement in the 1998 Policy provides coverage in relevant part as follows: 1. Insuring Agreement 8, We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay in damages because of “bodily injury” or “property damage” to which this insurance applies. We will have the right and duty to defend eny “suit” seeking those damages. We ‘may, at our discretion, investigate any “occurrence” and settle any claim or “suit” that may result. But: (1) The amount we will pay for damages is limited as described in LIMITS OF INSURANCE (SECTION IID}; and @) Our right and duty to defend end when we have used up the applicable limit of insurance in the payment of judgments or settlements under Coverages A or B or ‘medical expenses under Coverage C. No other obligation or Tibility to pay sums or perform acts or services is covered unless explicitly provided for. under SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS, COVERAGES A AND B. This insurance applies to “bodily injury” and “property damage” only if (1) The “bodily injury” or “property damage” is caused by an “occurrence” that takes place in the “coverage territory”; and 2) The “bodily injury” or “property damage” ‘occurs during the policy period, ©. Damages because of “bodily injury” include damages claimed by aay person or organization for care, loss of services {0Ta011394omDH13t) Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111034‘Margaret Janowiak March 12,2014 Page 3 or death resulting at any time from the “bodily injury.” The “Inim isseeking damages for physical harm and emotional injuries. ‘Thus, the Claima is alleging bodily injury that is potentially within the scope of the 1998 Policy. Tae ‘Claim alleges thatthe molestation of ‘by Sandusky commence in Spring 1998, thus giving rise to a single occurrence in that poliey year arising from PSU's alleged negligent conduct in failing to protect from abuse by Sandusky." THE CLAIM Is EXCLUDED BY THE SEXUAL ABUSE AND MOLESTATION EXCLUSION IN THE 1998 POLICY. ‘The 1998 Policy contains an exclusion for ebuse and molestation. It is PMA’s position that the Claims is entirely exchuded by the abuse and molestation exclusion in the 1998 Policy, which provides in full: ABUSE OR MOLESTATION EXCLUSION ‘This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: (COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART ‘This insurance does not apply to “bodily injury,” “property damage,” “advertising injury” or “personal injury” arising out of: (@) the actual or threatened abuse or molestation by anyone of any person while in the care, custody or control of any insured, or () the negligent @ employment; investigation; ii) supervision; iv) reporting tothe proper authorities, or fiilure {0 so report or "fu the vet that there are multiple Sandusky vied claims that wigger the 1998 Policy, itis PMA's position that, the allegations agaist PSU ive rise fo a0 more than ono occurrence per policy year a a result of Sandusky's conduct, regardless ofthe oumber of sleged victims. {oaTweti93 oomEH19¥4) Case ID: 131103195 Control No. 15111034Margaret Janowiak March 12, 2014 Page 4 () retention; of a person for whom any insured is or ever was legally responsible and whose conduct would be excluded by (a) above. Inasmuch as the alleged abuse of ‘by Sandusky commenced after March 1, 1998, the exetusion bars from coverage the entirety of the claim against PSU. In addition, to the extent that intentional acts on the part of PSU resulted in molestation by Sandusky, Exclusion (a) of the Policy also bars coverage for such acts, ‘That exclusion states as follow: 2. Bxelusions. ‘This insurance does not apply to: a. “Bodily injury” or “property damage” expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured, This exclusion does not apply to “bodily injury” resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property. ‘THERE IS NO COVERAGE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES To the extent that the Claim seeks punitive damages as a result of PSU's alleged conduct, punitive damages are not insurable under Pennsylvania law and none of the policies issued by PMA to PSU provides coverage for such damages. PSU HAS NOT RESPONDED TO PMA’S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CLAIM, Ina letter dated October 28, 2013 from our counsel, Steven Engeimyer, to your attomey, Linda Kornfeld, we asked for information regarding certain of the setled Sandusky victim claims, including ‘We have not had a response to that request. Please provide the requested information at your earliest convenience. ‘The positions and reservations expressed in this letter are solely with respect to the Claim and are without prejudice to either PSU"s or PMA’s rights and obligations with respect to any other matter. PMA’s investigation of this matter, with respect to the Claim specifically and the allegations involving Sandusky and PSU generally, is ongoing. YMA reserves all rights to assert any tem, provision, condition or exclusion of any policy issued by PMA to PSU as facts and circumstances, including the filing of additional suits for damages, warrant, If you have any {0071161 por) Case ID: 131103195 Control No. 15111034Margaret Janowiek March 12, 2014 Page 5 questions about our denial of coverage or with respect to investigation of this matter, please ‘contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Sty ane Darn Sallyanfe Donovan, Esquire Corporate Claims Manager {oom9t io (ere 40 Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111034Exhibit 6 Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111034CONFIDENTIAL, Page 183 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA : JANUARY TERM, MANUFACTURERS 2012 ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE CIVIL ACTION UNIVERSITY, and : NO, 004126 JOHN DOE A, Defendants. +* CONFIDENTIAL ** THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2015 Continued Videotaped Deposition of KURT | scuut, was taken pursuant to notice, held at baw Offices of Saul Ewing, LLP, 1500 Market Street, Centre Square West, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on above date, at approximately 9:30 a.m., before Jeanne Christian, | professional Court Reporter-Notary Public, and | Earle strain, Video Tape Operator. Veritext Legal Solutions 212-279-9424 www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Case ID: 131103195 Control No. 15111034aw 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2a 22 23 CONFIDENTIAL, @. What facts did you rely upon in deciding that any of the victims were in the care of Penn State when deciding that the exclusion applied? A. In addition to the allegations in the Complaint, the intake sheets, the conversations that we had with defense counsel, among others, those things come to mind @. When you say conversations with defense counsel, what specifically did you discuss with defense counsel about the - whether the victims were in the care of Penn State as the term is used here? ae Well, in the meetings that I previously talked about, and also, in reviewing defense counsel's evaluation documents, individual cases, we talked about the circumstances of each of those cases as to when the victims were allegedly molested, where that molestation took place, and in many instances, it took place on Penn State's premises, on the campus. It was a lot of information that we looked at to arrive at that conclusion Veritext Legal Solutions www.verilext.com 212-490-3430 Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 151 1103410) ai 12 13 14 is ae a7 18 19 20 21] 22 23) 24 25 CONFIDENTIAL Q. Was it -- is it PMA's position that if the molestation took place on campus, then the victims were in Penn State's care, as that term is used here? aA. yes 2 What about custody? You said PMA's position that if the molestation took place on campus that the victims were in Penn State's custody, as the term is used here? A It could be. Q. Does PMA have a position in that regard? A. our position is that depending on the facts of each individual on the situation, some of the victims may have been in the custody of Penn State Q. Do you remember personally yourself forming a conclusion as to whether any of the victims were in Penn State's custody, as that term is used in this exclusion? MR. ENGELMYER: Wait, slow down. Any of the victims across, if T may use the term, all three buckets? MS. KORNFELD: No, Bucket 2. MR. ENGELMYER: Let's just Veritext Legal Solutions 212-279-9424 ‘www.veritext.com, 212-490-3430 Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 1511103415 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all of them for purposes of stating that the exclusion applies, if you understand what I mean? MR. ENGELMYER: I don't, so | you are not going to answer it. Is -- first of all, T object to the lack of foundation, which is, there is a second section of this | exclusion, and if you are asking the question, you have got to ask it properly, because there is a lack of foundation. You asked, doos PMA take the position that one of these three have to apply. There is a lack of foundation that any of them have to apply. BY MS. KORNFELD: @: Is it PMA's position that any of the ‘92 to '98 victims were in Penn State's custody as that term is used here? A. Without looking at the individual the facts of each individual case that fall into that bucket, I can't answer that question. Qs What facts -- A. As 1 Sit here today, I don't recall the curcumstances of each and every one of those cases, the intake sheets, the information was Veritext Legal Solutions 212-279-9424 ‘wow. vetexteom 212-490-3430 Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111034CONFIDENTIAL Page 268 provided to us, e. As you sit here, do: you know if PMA -~ 10 at 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2a 22 23 24 25 is PMA's position that any of the '92 to '98 victims were in the custody of Penn State? aA Some of them may have been @. You don't know what PMA's position is on that issue as you’ sit here today? MR. ENGELMYER: Well, as to particular victim claim, I mean, he said some of them may have been. I don't know what else you want him to say without putting the particular claim/in front of him. THE WITNESS: I think some of them could have been or were in the care, custody or control of Penn State. BY MS. KORNFELD: Q: —- Right. A: As to/Paragraph A. @. So my question is specific as to custody. Is it PMA's position that» any of well, strike that. Is it PMA's position that. any of the victims at any time were in Penn State's custody, as that term is uged in this Veritext Legal Solutions 212-279-9424 www. veritext.com 212-490-3430 Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 1511103410) 1. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2. 22 23 24 exclusion? And when I say victims, I’m triking about the '92, to '98 victims. MR: ENGELMYER: Objection, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: I don’t’ know. BY MS. KORNFELD: ©: And I have the same question with respect. to control. If the victims were molested on campus, is it PMA's position that the-victim -- any such victim was in the control of Penn state? AL Possibly. Q. And can you think of any victims where PMA has taken that position? A. I ean't specifically. e. Do you know if PMA has taken that position as to any of the victims, that they were in Penn State's control when they were on Penn State's campus? aA. I believe that we have taken the position that some of the victims were in Penn State's care, custody or control, care or custody or control, as respects Paragraph A 2 We will look at particular victims Veritext Legal Solutions ___| www veritext.com 212-490-3430 Case ID: 131103195 Control No. 15111034.ut 12 13 14 15 16 a7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CONFIDENTIAL, 2. Has PMA ever broken out between care custody or control? 1 don't believe -- I haven't seen it. And that's why T am asking } -- r'm trying to determine if it is PMA's position that any -- that any of the victims \ ever were in Penn State's custody or control I believe you stated that if they were on campus, they were in Penn State's care, and I | ar attempting to determine whether it is PMA'Ss position that any of the victims were also in Penn state's custody, as that term is used in the policy, or control, as that term is used in the policy. MR. ENGELMYER: So are you \ asking him whether or not PMA has | distinguished between care versus custody versus control in taking its position on | coverage? | MS. KORNFELD: ‘Yes, I am. MR. ENGELMYER: Okay, if you can answer that, if you know. THE WITNESS: We have, not to my Knowledge, made that distinction. bY MS. KORNFELD: | ~ Veritext Legal Solutions 212-279-9424 www.veritext.com 212-490-3430 Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111034Rone 10 aa 12 13 14 15 16 (eee ter tC Att © I, Jeanne Christian, a Notary Public, do hereby certify that the foregoing deposition of KURT SCHUBL, was taken before me, pursuant to notice, at the time and place indicated; that said deponent was by me duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; that the testimony of said deponent was correctly recorded in machine shorthand by me and thereafter transcribed under my supervision with computer-aided transcription; that the deposition is a true record of the testimony given by the witness; and that I am neither of counsel nor kin to any party in said action, nor interested in the outcome thereof. WITNESS my hand and official seal this 25th day of July, 2015. aoe CD sa ntenmnite Jeanne Christian Notary Public Veritext Legal Solutions 212-279-9424 wwwveritexticom 212-490-3430 Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111034Exhibit 7 Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111034Confidential - John Doe 200 10 ul 12 13 14 a8 16 ua 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Seat ssaceseeta vs. : JANUARY TERM 2012 THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND JOHN DOE A, Defendants. : NO, 02416 THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE : CIVIL ACTION UNIVERSITY, : Plaintiff, vs. : NOVEMBER TERM : 2013 PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant . : NO. 03195 THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE. : CIVIL ACTION UNIVERSITY, : Plaintiff, vs. : NOVEMBER TERM : 2013 PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS' ASSOCIATION INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. NO. 03197 CONFIDENTIAL DEPOSITION OF JOHN DOE 200 July 8, 2015 Golkow Technologies, Inc. Control No. Case HF31103195 15111034Confidential - John Doe 200 1 2 3 ae 4 5 Q. - . 2 . 7 A. | e ~ 9 10 a - aa 12 B 14 A. 1s Q. Now, it says here in 16 Mr. "s letter: In Feil oe 17 that would be you -- attended High 18 School and participated in activities 18 relating to the Second Mile with friends. 20 Is that accurate? a1 A. Yes. 22 Q. Okay. How did you become 23. introduced to the Second Mile? 24 A. Through the school. I was Golkow Technologies, Inc. CascttiA 03195 Control No.: 15111034Confidential - John Doe 200 1 and that's where a lot of abuse had happened. 2 We would have pizza parties at, like, 2 mansions, and then most of our activities 4 were at the Bryce Jordan Center. It was 5 brand new 6 We were hanging out at the 7 Bryce Jordan Center upper box offices all the 8 time. We would be sitting at basketball 3 games up in the stands, far away from other 10 people. We would be you know, everybody 31 would be down here; we would be up in the 12 corner. Or if we weren't there, we'd be in aa the box seats or whatever they call them. 4 Q. About how many kids would 15 usually be in this group? 16 5X It depended. It was as little 17 as just me, and it was as big as sometimes we 18 had -- I would put a quick number of maybe a se 20 Q. Was it just boys or were there 21 girls mixed in? 22 A. There was girls and boys. 2a Q. Okay. And how did you first 24 meet -- and I don't -- I'm not talking about Golkow Technologies, Inc. Case 1103 195 Control No.: 15111034Confidential 2 him watching your games. How did you first 2 have personal interaction or meeting with 3 Mr. Sandusky? How did that first happen? 4 AL Well, it first “happened ‘at‘a 5 pond, andit hada dock. f\éan't say exactly 6 where. I/just know it was kind of in the 7 woods. And it’was kind of getting later 8 towards ‘the evening, and it was me: and 9 actually another female. That was the first 10° time like -+ it°was like an intimate, more il alone situation. 12 Q. Okay. And what happened? a3 Did you talk to him? u A. Well, I mean, I was kind of, 18 like, shy. I didn't talk to him much. But 16 he was very, you know, aggressive type -- 17 type guy. ae Q. So he was very talkative? 19 cae No, not even much so talkative. 20 He basically was more or less talking with 21 the girl. 22 Q. Okay. 23 Xs You know, he talked to me. He 24 basically would ask me questions like, come Golkow Technologies, Inc. - Case F1103195 Control No.: 15111034Confidential - John Doe 200 a find out what you know. 2 me Most of my stuff that I know is 32 basically like by sight and by personal, you 4 know, stuff. 5 Q. Okay. 6 AL The conversations is hard for 7 me to recall, you know. 8 Qo. okay; Now I'm going to’ read 8 from your lawyer's letter, and now I'm.going io = Eo start to get into things that Mr. Sandusky ui @idy «And again, we're going to’keep this 2 record confidential, but J do need to-ask you 13 about these things~ a Ttisays: He -- again that is means: you John Doe 200, was introduced.to 16 Sandusky at football games and was brought to 17 gome mansion at a’ party in either State 18 = College or Bellefonte where Sandusky entered 19 the hot tub with him, sat down next to him, 20 put his hand inside his shorts, and rubbed 21 his leg and penis. 22 Is that accurate? EE) A. It's accuraté, but-it makes it 24 sound like it's all the very first time we Golkow Technologies, Inc CaseXi #1 A103195 Control No.: 15111034Confidential - John Doe 200 1 had met. 2 Q. Okay. So you had met. him 3 previously at the’ pond, you just told me. 4 AL Yeah. 5 Q: Okay. ‘ A This’ is'-- this is’kind of 7 stuff that happened, you know, later on, kind ® of like:++'you'know? This sounds like this 9 was like the first time I met him -~ 10 CE Right. nu A. and it boom, boom, boom, you 12° know, happened: This is a long, drawn-out 13 year process. uM The correct part about --.you 35 know, the penis part, that part is*correct. 16 Q. Okay’. 17 AL It was not, you know, that same we day T met him. 19 a. I got it. I got it. 20 Now, by the way, according to 21 the letter, this happened in around 1995 or 22 1996. That seem right to you? 23 aA, Yeah. 24 Q. Okay. And that's when you were Golkow Technologies, Inc Case F103195 Control No.: 15111034Confidential - John Doe 200 1 in high school? a A Okay. 3 Q. Okay. I'm-asking. That is 4 when you were: in: high school? 5 A. Yes. 6 Qo Okay. So you -had met. -+ prior 7 to this: incident in the: hot tub, you had met 8 Mr. . Sandusky ‘on’ several: occasions? 5 A, Mm-hmm. 20 9. Okay. That's a "yes"? H A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. So hé didn't totich you 13 this’ way the first’ time he met you,’ right? a4 A. Correct. a5 Q. Okay, Now, again, v0 Mr. i letter says that this occurred 17 at a party in a mansion in either State 18 College or Bellefonte. 19 Sitting here today with me, can 20 -you -be’ any. more specific? 2 Do.you know for sure whether 22 this was:on-the campus or Belléfonte or 23° somewhere else? 24 A. That's so tough for me because Golkow Technologies, Inc. Caseit#41 71403195 Control No.: 15111034Confidential - John Doe 200 1 I didn't have much'sense of direction back 2 then, honestly. 1 know whén I've gone back 3 to Pennsylvania just to'visit family, it's 4 tough for me to even drive the streets 5 because Iwas used) to sitting in the 6 passenger’ seat for so long that -- and 1 7 didn't Have my. license back then: And it's 8 so:tough for meito try to differentiate 9 where <- what directions we went, you know. 10 Q. Okay. If you don't know, you a1 don't: know. 2 Before this incident in the hot 33° tub, had Mr. Sandusky touched you at all? 144 And I mean even, you know, an arm around the 15 back, shoulder, or anything. Had he touched 16 you at all prior to that? a A. Yes. ae Q. Okay. Tell me about that. as A. Well, there was, you know, 20 numerous occasions where he would be putting 21 his arms around me while we were working out. 22 ‘There were numerous occasions while we were 23° at the pond where he would have me masturbate 24 him, Golkow Technologies, Inc. Casett#1319 03195 Control No.: 15111034Confidential - John Doe 200 a A. Mm-mm. What I had done at that 2 time was I had got out of the hot tub 3 Q. Okay. 4 A. -- which makes more sense with 5 this letter because it was a chance to where 6 I wasn't completely just isolated with 7 Sandusky whenever his molestation was going ®@ on. It was a chance for me to get out and go % walk inside. And that's what I had done when ae that hot tub incident 1. Q. Okay. So that's the hot tub 22 incident. B And you said there were. other 14 occasions where he had you put lotion on his 15 penis or -- and masturbate him; is that 16 correct? w A. ves. as Q. Okay. How many times? 19 and you don't have to be exact, 20° but roughly how many times did that’ “happen? 2 A: It got repetitive over the 22 weekends with the sane girl and me in a room. 23° And I'll be honest, her and I were the two 24 quietest. We had no family around. The Golkow Technologies, Inc. Case #91 47103195 Control No.: 15111034Confidential - John Doe 200 2 foster homes where we were living weren't the 2 best. So it was kind of like we would -- you 3 know, I-know for me it was kind of like I 4 went by any, you know, older person. I kind 5 of felt like they had authority over me. 6 Q. Mahe’, a A. S80; DT tean, it -+ Thad fo -- T 8 guess you could say I was kind of just like % quiet and shy because I really didn't know 10 who to talk te when there was nobody around. a Q So when he would do this, where 12 would it happen, when he would have you put a lotion on him and masturbate him? a4 As It would happen at this cabin 18 where the pond was. And it couldn't -- it 16 might not have been, you know, a cabin. I 47 just remember, you know, the bedroom. I 18 remember the pond and the cance. 19 I kind of want to say that 20 there was all -- like another House even 21 close by. Even the mansion, I know there. was 22 a mansion, and then there was like a separate 23 building in the back. So my sensé of 24 awareness of what everything was around isn't Golkew Technologies, Inc Case A403195 Control No.: 15111034Confidential - John Doe 200 2 there today. 2 Q. Okay. And you're not sure 3 whether this was’ on the campus or somewhere i else? 5 A. Yeah; because I'm not sure of 6 what the grounds. are for the campus. 7 Q. Okay. I just want to be real 8 clear. When he would have you masturbate 9 him, this girl was in the room? 10 A. Mm-hmm, It was after he got 1. done with her. And it was almost like a 12 Bengay lotion. I mean, it had a very a distinct smell. 14 Q. Did you see him have 18 intercourse with this girl? 26 A. Yeah. I would say -- to me a7 then, it looked like he was grinding with ae her. 19 Q. Well, did she have clothes on? 20 A. No. 21 Q. And then after he was done with 22 her, he would have you perform this service 23 for him? 24 A. Yes. Golkow Technologies, inc. Case Ai03195 Control No.: 15111034Confidential - John Doe 200 CERTIFICATE I, « RPR, RMR, CRR, a Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public 4 within and for the . do hereby certify that prior to the commencement of the 5 examination, JOHN DOE 200 was duly sworn by me to testify to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 7 I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is a verbatim transcript of the 8 testimony as taken stenographically by and before me at the time, place, and on the date 3 hereinbefore set forth, to the best of my ability. 10 I DO FURTHER CERTIFY that I am 11. neither a relative nor employee nor attorney nor counsel of any of the parties to this 12 action, and that I am neither a relative nor employee of such attorney or counsel, and 13° that I am not financially interested in the action. a4 18 ay | a8 19 Notary Public in and for the 20 My Commission Expires: July 30, 2016 21 Dated: July 21, 2015 22 23 24 Golkow Technologies, Inc. El Control No.: 15111034Exhibit 8 Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111034MEYER ¢ DARRAGH MW BUCKLER BEBENEK & ECK, PLLC. el a Aterseyrat a Pa US. Steel Tower + Suite 4850 + 600 Grant Street + Pittsburgh, PA 15219 wwvemdbbe conn Phone: (412) 261-6600 + Fax: (412) 471-2754 Erie N. Anderson Direct Dit (412) 553-71 ‘Aliomeya Lav E-mails exderson@mibbe.com Licensed in PA, WV & Ott October 5, 2015 Steven J. Engelmyer, Esquire Kleinbard, LLC One Liberty Place 46" Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Re: Penn State Matter Our File No.: Engel-119756 Dear Mr. Engelmyer: ‘At your request, | have undertaken a review of numerous materials you provided me concerning the claims and the settlement of those claims arising out the Jerry Sandusky/Penn State matter. | have reviewed the complete Freeh Report and the individual files of those who settled their claims with Penn State. | have also conducted background research and have reviewed many of the files which | have handled over the past several years. You have asked me to review the individual cases and the accompanying information in order to provide you with my opinion conceming the value of the cases and whether there are certain defenses, and in particular, the statute of limitations defense, which could have been raised in some of the matters. ‘As way of background, | have been an attorney licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania since 1973. | am also licensed in the State of Ohio and the State of West Virginia. Our fim has been involved in representing religious institutions, organizations and transportation entities as well as private corporations in matters arising out of claims of sexual abuse for many years, preceding when | started with Meyer Darragh in 1978. | personally have been handling cases involving allegations of sexual abuse for the past 15 years and have represented and continue 10 tepresent religious organizations, dioceses, transportation companies and individuals who have become involved in civil matters arising out of claims of sexual abuse. Our firm represented the diocese in Hutchison v. Luddy, which a partner of mine tried starting in 1994. That particular case went to the Superior Court on three occasions and to the Supreme Court on two occasions. | was involved in the last stages of that (121986. Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111034Steven J. Engelmyer, Esquire Page 2 case when it was in the Superior Court and | was involved in the final settlement of the matter. | have represented religious institutions and private companies where there have been groups of individuals who have made claims arising out of the alleged abuse by fone particular individual as well as groups of claimants arising out of alleged sexual abuse by several individuals who were acting as employees of the organization or corporation. | have settled sexual abuse claims on a group basis as well as an individual basis and continue to do such, Iwas representing a client concerning multiple claims of sexual abuse by several different employees in the early 2000 timeframe when the seminal cases of Meehan v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 870 A.2d, 912 (Pa. super. 2005), petition for allocator denied 584 Pa. 717, 885 A.2d 985 (2005), Baselice v. Franciscans Friars Assumption, BVM Providence, inc., 879 A.2d 270 (Pa. Super. 2005), and Lazarskiv. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 926 A.2d 457 (Pa. Super. 2007) were decided. Those are the three cases which discussed at length the statute of limitations defense in sexual abuse cases. My research has indicated that there have been no appellate cases which have reversed or in any way modified the decisions of the Superior Court in those cases. Meehan was decided by the Superior Court in March of 2005 and the plaintiffs petitioned the ‘Supreme Court for allocator which the Supreme Court denied in September of 2005. Re-argument was denied in November of 2005. in Basefice, the Superior Court handed down its decision in July of 2005. Finally, Lazarski was decided by the Superior Court in July of 2007. Those three cases address the application of the two year statute of limitations. In 2002, the Pennsylvania legislature amended the statute of limitations for individuals entitled to bring a civil action arising out of childhood sexual abuse to 12 years after attaining the age of 18. Although the Pennsylvania judiciary has refused to recognize the doctrine of repressed memory, the legislature tacitly adopted such by extending the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse to 12 years once an individual reaches the age of majority It has been stated on repeated occasions that in evaluating the defense, the Pennsylvania courts have a strong policy of favoring the strict application of the statute of limitations. See, E.J.M. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 424 Pa. Super. 449, 622 A.2d 1388 (1993). In every one of the cases that | reviewed, the individual was aware of the abuse which was being perpetrated, the identity of the perpetrator, and the identity of the employer or entity with which the perpetrator was affliated. Under Pennsylvania law, neither the discovery rule nor the doctrine of fraudulent concealment would have been a viable exception to the statute of limitation defense. Being that the statute of limitations is a policy which is strongly favored by the Pennsylvania courts and is given strict application, any exception to the rule is extremely limited. Ev.M. v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, supra, 424 Pa, super. 449 at 460, 622 A.2d 1388 at 1394 (1993) 11244368.) Case ID: 131103195 Control No. 15111034Steven J. Engelmyer, Esquire Page 3 The rationale of the decisions in Meehan, Baselice and Lazarski has not been affected by the extended childhood sexual abuse statute. Therefore, if a lawsuit had not been initiated by the time an individual reached 30 years of age, the statute of limitations under Pennsylvania law would be an absolute defense. The statute is not retroactive so as to revive a claim for which the statute had already expired With respect to my analysis of the individual claims, | have analyzed each case based on all of the information which was provided to me. | have provided a summary of the imyortant information pertaining to each claim and then my analysis of the claim and my opinion concerning the settiement value based on my background and experience. Where | believe that the statute of limitations was an affirmative defense, | state such and do not provide an opinion concerning the settlement value of the case because the statute was a complete defense. In my analysis, | consider the strengths and weaknesses of each case. Since all of the cases involve claims for emotional and psychological damages, background information and verification of the claims is, ‘essential when determining the settlement value. Some of the comments in the individual summaries are a reflection of my approach to the analysis of the case for settlement purposes. The absence of documentation was an important part of my evaluation. In many of the individual cases, there was no signed affidavit, statement or other means of personal verification of the information which | reviewed. The documentation provided in almost all of the case included a report from Finberg & Rozen. However, the reports were not signed by individual claimants. It appears as though Penn State made little effort, if any, to verify the credibility of the claims of the individuals, Where documentation was provided, such as medical records and reports, psychological evaluations and therapy records, | gave them dus consideration, | also took into consideration the evaluator and the purpose for which the evaluation was performed. Obviously, the analysis of a claim involving sexual abuse is multifaceted and since damages are not empirical, such as in most personal injuries cases, the more information that is available the more complete the analysis. During the course of my analysis of the individual cases, | had an opportunity to review information concerning Penn State's evaluations. Generally speaking, it appears as though the amounts of the settlement were high and in some cases extremely high. Not having the benefit of knowing what analytical process was employed by the evaluators, | do not know why so many of the cases were settled for such high sums of money. Based on my experience, | believe there was a component of potential punitive damages which factored into Penn State's evaluations. Also present in the analytical process may have been a concern about publicity and a desire to resolve the matters very quickly. er214358.) Case ID: Control No. 131103195 15111034Steven J. Engelmyer, Esquire Page 4 only provide what my opinion is concerning the settlement value, My analysis and opinions are based on my background, education, training and experience as a trial attorney and are set forth with a reasonable degree of certainty. If additional information is provided for any particular claim, | would welcome the opportunity to review the additional information and, if appropriate, alter my opinion concerning the value of the particular case. Very truly von Cas. vy ackerrom— ENA/emr 1214388.) Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111034ERIC N. ANDERSON ATTORNEY AT LAW MEYER, DARRAGH, BUCKLER, BEBENEK & ECK, PLLC US STEEL TOWER, SUITE 4850 600 GRANT STREET PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 REPORT OF ERIC N. ANDERSON, ESQUIRE In Re: Penn State Settlements October 5, 2015 (pr21420 4) Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111034Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release signed his Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release on March 1, 2014, Th2 amount of the settlement is $250,000. Confidential Deposition of John Doe ~ July 8, 2015 ‘The deposition was taken in the case of PMA v. Pennsylvania State University and John Doe A. which was consolidated with cases entitled Penn State University v. PMA at Civil Action No. 3196 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County and the lavesuit entitled Penn State University v. PMA No. 3197 of the November term 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. John Doe was not represented by counsel On behalf of PMA, Paul Cagney conducted the direct examination. Also present was counsel for Penn State University, Michael John Miguel of the Law Firm Kasowitz, Benson, Torres and Friedman, LLP located in Los Angeles, CA, John Doe lives in " and he is a landscaper/groundskeeper. He was born on 1981 and is presently 34 years old. John Doe testified that he was abused by Sandusky. John Doe changed his name . John Doe atiended High School and participated in activities relating to the Second Mile with friends. Me Gagne questioned John Doe based on a letter from John Mine's attorney, Mr. Gagne asked John Doe whether the statement in + letter was accurate and John Doe replied yes. One statement is that Sandusky entered the hot tub with John Doe, sat down next to him, put his hand inside John Doe's shorts and rubbed his leg and penis. That incident occurred in 1995 or 1896 when John Doe was in high school. John Doe stated that there were occasions when Sandusky put his arm around John Doe when they were working out and there were numerous occasions when they were at the pond "where he would have me masturbate him.” Exactly when that occurred in terms of the hot tub incident was uncertain. There were occasions when Sandusky would take showers with John Doe. However, other people would be in the shower as well. Sandusky gave John Doe shoes, a sweat sult and took him places, such as movies, for ice cream and took him to basketball games at the Bryce Jordan Center and to the Penn State football games on campus. There were sleepovers at a “cabin” and the “mansion” with other Second Mile kids around. John Doe stated that he told his guidance counselor and mentioned to his 5 caseworker what had happened with Sandusky. He did not tell his mother. He told his father in 2011 when everything became public. John Doe stated that he observed other kids molested by Sandusky. They occurred during sleepovers when he would watch Sandusky lay on this one female and grind with her. When the incident occurred in the hot tub, there were other Second Mile kids in the hot tub. He does not know if anyone saw Sandusky touch his genitals. When that (1206703. 19 Case ID: Control No. 131103195 15111034occurred, - got out of the hot tub. John Doe refers to a "cabin" where he would have to masturbate Sandusky. John Doe testified that Sandusky would have Jchn Doe masturbate him after he got done with the girl in the room, He observed Sandusky having intercourse with a gil or it looked like he was grinding with her. She did not have any clothes on. The next day John Doe talked to his guidance counselor. This was the day after the incident in the hot tub. John Doe told the guidance counselor at the Second Mile, however, the guidance counselor did not believe him. This was bout the same time he told his caseworker. The deposition concluded at the request of John Doe. He no longer wanted to continue the deposition without representation by counsel Letter from on to Amy C. Foerster at Saul Ewing Dated August 7, 2012 states in his correspondence that he represents His date of birth is 1981. was introduced to Sandusky at toowall games and was brought to some ‘mansion’ for a party in either State College or Bellefonte. Sandusky entered the hot tub with him and put his hand inside shorts and rubbed his leg and penis. had not spoken to anyone about this until 2011 when everything became public about Sandusky. Conclusion The initial claim was made by correspondence from dated August 7, 2012. At that time, ‘was 31 years old. The statute of limitations on his claim would have expired on 2001, before the minor's sexual assault statute of limitations was amended and went into effect. The statute of limitations was a complete defense to the claim of ‘There is no question that knew that he was abused, he knew who his abuser was and he knew Sandusky's affiliation was with the Second Mille Program and Penn State University. Therefore, the discovery rule or the doctrine of fraudulent concealment would not be available to to avoid the application of the statute of limitations as a complete defense to his claim. «p1208703.1) 20 Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111034Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release signed his Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release on August 28, 2013 for the amount of $5,500,000, Confidential Intake Questionnaire Feinberg & Rozen Claims Resolution Process. was born on . 1987 and will turn 30 years old on, 7 . 2017. He presently resides in He claims that he suffered several incidents of sexual abuse by Sandusky. The abuse includes multiple instances of genital contact, and forced oral sex, at Sandusky's house, in Sandusky's car and in a swimming pool at Penn State University. There are no witnesses that are identified however, it is reported that an individual by the name of foster mother at the time of the incident, may have information concerning the abuse. provided specific and graphic testimony at the time of the criminal trial and Sandusky was convicted of the crimes of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assauit and unlawful contact with minors, corruption of minors and endanaering the welfare of children with respect to Sandusky's contect with Mr. is identified in the proceedings as Victim foster mother corroborated his testimony and she also testified at the trial. Mr. came into contact with Sandusky through the Second Mile program in which he participated as a result of “low self-esteem.” Sandusky gave Mr. gifts, including Penn State memorabilia and took him to Penn State football games. Mr. was 12 or 13 years old when Sandusky began sexually abusing him. The abuse allegedly began after the Spring of 1998, when Sandusky was discovered having improper relationships with minor boys in the shower and the abuse continued until late 1999 of early 2000. The abuse occurred in Sandusky's basement where Mr. was forcud to perform oral sex on Sandusky and Sandusky performed oral sex on Mr. Sandusky stimulated Mr anus and masturbated with Mr. . _In the pool at Penn State University Sandusky fondled Mr. genitals. Sandusky also fondled Mr. when in Sandusky's vehicle. Mr. was afraid to reveal the abuse because of fear for personal, social and reputational and professional consequences. It is stated in the Feinberg report that Mr. ~ has tried to lead a normal life but is, tortured and haunted by the years of abuse he suffered. That would be for approximately three years. It is stated that + ~ continues to suffer from physical, psychological and emotional harm, including a loss of the ability to trust people and to form intimate relationships. It is also stated that Mr. has suffered diminution in his earning capacity including losing the opportunity to attend college. He is presently employed as a fora company. He has suffered (1206708.1 54 Case ID: 131103195 Control No. 15111034from problems relating to drug and alcohol abuse which lead to criminal activity and that has had an impact on his employability Contained in the materials is a letter from to vin, dated June 28, 2013. Presumably Vis. _ 5 atlomey. performed a psychiatric evaluation of Mr. at the request of counsel. ‘The purpose of the evaluation was to detemnine if Mr. suffers from any psychiatric illness or emotional condition and if so, to what extent itis related to the abuse. It is opinion that suffers from psychiatric/emotional conditions directly related to his sexual abuse and his condition is permanent, It is noted by that this is a preliminary report and he will spend more time reviewing records. It is reported that met Sandusky in 1997 at the Second Mile camp. The first instance of abuse took place at the Sandusky residence in about 1998. On that occasion, Sandusky would wrestle with and then pull down his shorts and performed oral sex on ‘There was a second occasion where the same thing happened. This same scenario was repeated on numerous occasions. Wheri they were in Sandusky’s automobile, Sandusky would place his hand on leg and then eventually in pants and fondle him. It is reported that and Sandusky engaged in mutual oral sex on each other perhaps 10 or more times. It was in approximately 2000 that told his foster mother he did not want to go to the Second Mile camp and he did not want to see Sandusky, was embarrassed and frightened to speak to the grand jury but he did such. {twas also very difficult for him to testify in the criminal trial. reports that _ life was completely changed and claims that he became rebellious and later turned to drugs around the age of 15. stated that he does not know his biological father and apparently has been in foster homes. He also lived with his, ‘on occasion. In school he repeated the grade and left school in the grade, however, he did receive his GED. has a number of criminal convictions. He is now married and has a young child has worked as an technician and cleaning industrial and business locations. However, he is presently unemployed. Mr. reports that he is suffering from depression and anxiety. He has had trouble sleeping, and experiences nightmares as a result of his contact with Sandusky. He has had flashback experiences and admits to being cranky and irritable. He appears to be one of average intelligence although he may have a Jearning disability. He has problems concentrating and paying attention which believes are longstanding but worsened by depression, The diagnosis provided by 's post-traumatic stress disorder, severe, and he is experiencing moderate to severe impairment in social and occupational functioning. The abuse which = s suffered at the hands of Sandusky make him angry, rebellious and resistant to authority. It led to drug use for purposes of avoiding intrusive thoughts and flashbacks, nightmares and anxiety. The (pr208703.) 55 Case ID: 131103195 Control No. 15111034drug use lead to criminal behavior and ultimately a sentence to jail, He has a record as a felon. His feelings and emotional state are going to be with him forever, Mr «story and his psychological and emotional injuries are consistent with victims of Sexual abuse. Transcript of Trial Testimony The transcript corroborates the version of the events set forth in the Feinberg Report. was witness and identified as victim Conclusion slaims were not barred by the statute of limitations. There is very litle corroborating evidence of 8 version of the events. He did testify at the criminal trial and before the grand jury. Ine corroboration of his testimony would be the jury verdict which found Sandusky guilty of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, two ‘separate accounts, Indecent assault, unlawful contact with minors, corruption of minors and endangering the welfare of children. There is little documentation concerning emotional trauma and his psychological and emotional injuries. The report of was prepared at the request of + counsel and only saw ‘an one occasion. came from a troubled background and apparently had some emotional and behavioral problems before he ever met Sandusky. It would be important to have more information concerning the damage aspect of claim. However, based on the abuse which sustained, and the limited information concerning the damage aspect of his claims, 1 believe that the settlement value of his case Is approximately $2 million dollars. (Pr2osrea) 56 Case ID: 131103195 Control No.: 15111034