Cal U. trial bogged down by documents
The trial in the lawsuit filed by ousted California University of Pennsylvania president Angelo Armenti against the State System of Higher Education will be delayed until next summer so both sides can review more than 300 million pages of documents in the case, according to a court filing.
Federal Judge John E. Jones III had scheduled the trial to begin in February, but attorneys asked for a delay because of the volume of material that must be reviewed.
Last October, Armenti sued the system, its former chancellor, John Cavanaugh; former state Education Secretary Ron Tomalis; and the system's board of governors, Guido Picchini, Marie Conley and Ron Henry, alleging they conspired to deprive him of his civil rights when he was abruptly fired in May 2012. The suit names university Professor Michael Slavin, president of the school's faculty union.
Armenti was dismissed following months of criticism by faculty members who claimed his free-spending ways had plunged the school deeply into debt and harmed academic programs. In addition, a state audit was highly critical of Armenti's handling of school finances.
Armenti maintains he was fired because he filed a complaint against Cavanaugh, claiming he interfered in the longtime president's management of the school.
Bruce Antkowiak, a former federal prosecutor and professor of criminology and law at St. Vincent College near Latrobe, said while the volume of documents in Armenti's case is large, the introduction of electronic documents — emails in particular — into court proceedings makes it a more frequent occurrence.
“Documents running into that number are more common. In this day and age, I don't think that will be out of the question,” Antkowiak said.
Richard Gazarik is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-830-6292 or at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.