On Tuesday, June 30, 2026, the Court held an evidentiary hearing in Centre County on my motion seeking sanctions against Penn State for vexatious conduct during this litigation. Under Pennsylvania law, vexatious conduct generally refers to conduct that unnecessarily prolongs litigation or causes needless expense. Evidence that a party knew its position lacked merit, yet continued litigating anyway, can be powerful evidence of vexatious conduct.

Our position is straightforward. Penn State knew from the outset that I was legally entitled, as an elected trustee, to receive the endowment information and to review the Elevate contract because both were directly related to my duties as a trustee. Instead of providing that information, Penn State chose to fight those requests for years. Only after it appeared the litigation was unlikely to end in its favor did Penn State agree to provide the information—provided that I sign separate confidentiality agreements.

I would have gladly signed those agreements when I first requested the documents years earlier, and indeed signed several others during my tenure as a trustee with no issues.

At the hearing, we presented evidence that demonstrates Penn State acknowledged in its own legal filings that I was entitled to the requested information. Our argument is that forcing us to litigate, and continuing to engage in vexatious conduct throughout the litigation, unnecessarily increased the cost of the
case. It certainly increased my legal expenses, and I believe it sends a discouraging and chilling message to any trustee who might seek information in the future.

Why does this matter?

The testimony of Trustees Anthony Lubrano and Jay Paterno offered a window into how information has been handled within the Board. Their testimony supported my longstanding concern that only some trustees are provided the information all trustees need to effectively exercise independent oversight. When combined with the Board’s overwhelming pattern of approving agenda items with few dissenting votes, and pressuring all trustees to approve of matters unanimously raises legitimate questions about whether trustees are receiving enough information to fully evaluate the matters before them.

Are trustees engaged in informed and meaningful deliberations, as required by responsible governance? Or simply serving as rubber stamps?

One interesting aspect of the hearing involved the witnesses themselves. Penn State asked the Court to prevent discovery, by forbidding taking sworn depositions from Penn State leadership, and to quash subpoenas issued to Trustees Anthony Lubrano and Jay Paterno, along with Athletic Director Pat Kraft. Penn State argued, among other things, that requiring the trustees to appear would be burdensome and that Mr. Kraft would be unavailable because he was on vacation.

Judge Marshall granted the motion to quash. Yet on June 30—the very day Mr. Kraft was reportedly unavailable—he authored a public letter that was published on the GoPSUSports website reflecting on the 2025–26 athletic year.

You can draw your own conclusions.

Although their subpoenas had been quashed, Trustees Lubrano and Paterno voluntarily appeared at the courthouse. When called to testify, they took the oath and answered questions under oath. I appreciate their willingness to do so and their commitment to telling the truth, despite pressure from Board leadership and what I know is often an uncomfortable environment for trustees who ask difficult questions.

I also want to thank everyone who has supported this effort this far. This case has never been about one document or one contract. It is about whether alumni-elected trustees can obtain the information they need to fulfill the responsibilities entrusted to them by the Penn State community.

Meanwhile, in our federal case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, we are awaiting the Court’s ruling on Penn State’s motion to dismiss. If the case proceeds, we will enter discovery, where both sides will have the opportunity to request documents, take depositions, and develop the factual record under oath.