USC to rerelease scandal documents
USC will have to release unredacted versions of applications and emails connected to the Operation Varsity Blues admissions case to a parent in the case to provide him enough information to make a defense argument, a federal judge ruled in court Tuesday.
The order follows parent Robert Zangrillo’s June subpoena to request materials related to USC’s admissions policies. The University attempted to quash the subpoena, citing concerns over student privacy. However, the court denied the subpoena but allowed the University to omit identifying information from the documents it submitted relating to the case.
Judge Mary Page Kelley said the information the University has redacted in past documents it released to the USC parents in the college admissions case make it more difficult for the defendants to build their case. The document filed Tuesday requires USC to rerelease the documents it submitted to Zangrillo’s defense, and to other parents’ defense attorneys as deemed relevant, with no redactions.
In Zangrillo’s case in particular, the court called the redactions “unworkable” and said documents were impossible to decipher for trial. It also found that USC had been misleading in how it presented its admissions practices and redactions
“This makes it even more critical for Zangrillo, if he is to understand the documents, effectively and efficiently use them at trial, and potentially counter the government’s assertions about USC’s admissions process that run contrary to his defense, to see the documents without redactions,” the court order read.
The court began to investigate in December whether the redactions affected Zangrillo’s ability to construct his argument, according to court documents. His primary argument is based on the fact that, unlike in other cases in the admissions scandal, senior associate athletic director Donna Heinel did not present his daughter Amber’s athletic profile to an admissions subcommittee for approval, so the payment Robert made to the USC Athletics account should not be considered a bribe but a purported donation that resulted in USC tagging Amber’s application for special consideration.
The University originally redacted sections of the evidence — including names, grades and test scores — to protect confidentiality, USC said in a statement to the Daily Trojan.
“We have always cooperated with the government and the courts and make every effort to provide information, including to the defendants,” the statement read. “We provided unredacted documents to the government and the court. We are reviewing the decision in detail and deciding next steps, including whether to appeal.”
Several parents in the case, including Robert, have argued that USC issues acceptances and flags applications based on potential donations as part of its normal admissions process, making the Varsity Blues parents less culpable. Robert’s defense plans to use the documents he subpoenaed the University for in June to argue that the process by which Amber gained acceptance was a legitimate means of admission, according to court documents.
Robert has been charged with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and honest services mail and wire fraud, conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery, conspiracy to commit money laundering and aiding and abetting wire fraud and honest services wire fraud. He allegedly paid to secure Amber’s admission to USC as a women’s crew candidate following her initial rejection and arranged for one of admissions scheme organizer William “Rick” Singer’s employees to take classes that were listed on her transcript. He pleaded not guilty to all charges and will stand trial in Boston federal court Oct. 5.