What testimony did John Doe 42 (the referee) give in court filings about informing coaches of Strauss's behavior?

1. The core allegation Doe 42 put into the lawsuit

The lawsuit alleges that in 1994–1995 John Doe 42 was approached by Strauss in an otherwise empty locker-room shower, that Strauss masturbated while staring at him and made a comment about his penis, and that Doe 42 promptly told coaches Russ Hellickson and “Assistant Coach Jordan” about the encounter ^{[5] [6]}. The complaint quotes the coaches’ response as, “Yeah, that’s Strauss,” and in other passages says similar reporting of Strauss was met with “Yeah, yeah, we know,” portraying the conduct as widely known within the program ^{[1] [7]}.

2. Doe 42’s contemporaneous interviews and “open secret” framing

After the filing, Doe 42 spoke to NBC and framed Strauss’s conduct as common knowledge within OSU athletics—saying explicitly, “It was common knowledge what Strauss was doing so the attitude was it is what it is”—language echoed by multiple outlets that covered the filing ^{[3] [8] [9]}. Those interviews reinforced the lawsuit’s contention that the incident was not treated as an isolated allegation but as part of a pattern that teammates and staff recognized, which independent investigators later documented in broader findings about Strauss’s abuse ^{[9] [2]}.

3. How the complaint situates Jordan and Hellickson

The complaint uses Doe 42’s account to assert that Jordan and Hellickson were told directly about Strauss’s misconduct and responded without apparent alarm, but it does not list Jordan or Hellickson among the 20 OSU employees formally named in the suit as having the authority to take corrective action—an inconsistency noted in reporting ^{[2] [10]}. Jim Jordan has repeatedly denied knowing about Strauss’s abuses during his tenure as an OSU assistant coach, a denial that has been reported alongside the filing ^{[9] [8]}.

4. Conflicting accounts and identity questions raised by other reporting

Investigative reporting cited by outlets such as the Daily Caller and Daily Wire examined social-media postings and prior interviews and concluded the referee believed to be Doe 42 (reported by those outlets as Frederick Feeney) had in earlier years made statements that conflicted with the lawsuit’s framing about whether he had accused Jordan of knowing, prompting questions about consistency in his public statements ^{[1] [4]}. Those reporters reported that some posts were later blocked and that Feeney did not unequivocally deny being Doe 42 when asked, complicating the narrative around the complainant’s identity and past comments ^{[1] [4]}.

5. Broader investigative context cited in the filings and news coverage

Independent investigators and multiple news outlets have documented that allegations about Strauss were raised across decades and that Ohio State personnel had knowledge of complaints as early as 1979, providing context that plaintiffs and reporters use to argue the university and certain staff tolerated or dismissed warnings—context that Doe 42’s claim about telling coaches fits into ^{[9] [2]}. At the same time, reporting makes clear the lawsuit’s allegations rest in part on anonymous plaintiffs and recollections decades after the events, and that some witnesses’ statements have been described as inconsistent by critics ^{[7] [4]}.

6. What the court filing does—and does not—prove on its face

The court filing records Doe 42’s assertion that he informed Jordan and Hellickson and that they replied, “Yeah, that’s Strauss,” and Doe 42’s media statements reinforce that depiction ^{[1] [11]}. The filings and media coverage establish the allegation and the claimant’s account; they do not, by themselves, establish contemporaneous documentary proof of the conversation or resolve conflicting public statements about the referee’s earlier comments and identity—matters raised by later reporting and by denials from Jordan and Hellickson ^{[4] [12]}.