Have any deposition transcripts from the Strauss litigation been unsealed or released, and what do they show?
Executive summary
A federal court has unsealed deposition material in the litigation over Dr. Richard Strauss’s alleged decades-long sexual abuse at Ohio State University, and those transcripts (and related filed discovery) portray a pattern of institutional knowledge and alleged concealment by university staff; reporting and the unsealed complaint quote witnesses saying Strauss was placed “above accountability” and that OSU learned of misconduct over time [1]. Additional discovery rulings — including a judge allowing plaintiffs to subpoena billionaire Les Wexner — indicate the record may expand further, though public reporting and archives cited here do not identify a comprehensive catalog of every individual deposition transcript released to date [2] [1].
1. What has actually been unsealed: deposition excerpts and an amended complaint, not a sealed “dump” of every transcript
Court filings made public in the Strauss litigation include an amended complaint and quoted deposition testimony that federal courts unsealed after litigation over redactions, and those materials reproduce powerful deposition excerpts and summaries rather than a single consolidated tranche of raw, verbatim depositions in every case [1].
2. What the unsealed testimony shows: institutional awareness and alleged cover-up
The unsealed materials and quoted testimony depict Ohio State personnel acknowledging that Strauss was effectively insulated from oversight, with at least one witness—Dr. Forrest Smith—saying Strauss was nominally under his command but that he “didn’t control [Strauss],” a line used by plaintiffs to argue university actors placed Strauss “above accountability,” a theme repeated across the unsealed depositions cited in the amended complaint [1].
3. Scope and scale alleged in the public record: dozens of plaintiffs and systemic failures
The amended complaint consolidated into the public record alleges up to 93 men as plaintiffs and uses deposition excerpts to argue that OSU not only facilitated but also concealed Strauss’s abuse over a multi-decade period, citing specific institutional responses—suspension in January 1996 and other administrative actions—that plaintiffs say were insufficient or cover-up oriented [1].
4. Litigation mechanics: unsealing as a tool and continuing discovery battles
Unsealing in this litigation followed motions and court rulings that weighed the public interest in disclosure against confidentiality and privilege, and the judge’s recent order allowing plaintiffs to subpoena Les Wexner for deposition signals ongoing discovery fights that could broaden what becomes public, even as courts continue to police what specific deposition content must remain sealed or redacted [2] [1].
5. What the released testimony does not (yet) show and limitations of available reporting
Public reporting and the unsealed amended complaint cite and excerpt deposition testimony that supports allegations of institutional failure, but the sources reviewed do not present a full, verbatim set of every deposition in the case or a comprehensive index of what additional witness transcripts have been unsealed, so conclusions must be confined to what the public filings and quoted excerpts actually contain [1].
6. Competing narratives and implicit agendas to watch
Plaintiffs and survivor advocates frame the unsealed testimony as critical evidence of systematic concealment and institutional culpability; university and defense actors have argued in court filings (reflected in motions opposing unsealing) for privacy, evidentiary integrity, and procedural protections—an alignment that makes unsealing fights as much about litigation strategy and reputational risk management as about truth-seeking [1] [2].