PITTSBURGH — The attorney representing a Zelienople boy falsely accused of sexual assault believes the girls involved in a federal lawsuit and their families, “continue to act like bullies.”

That statement comes in response to some of the lawsuit's defendants jointly filing a motion on Monday to modify a Dec. 6 protective order for investigative materials regarding the false sexual assault allegations.

The federal lawsuit, filed in October by Alecia and Michael Flood Jr., claims the Floods' minor son, identified as T.F., suffered physical torment and psychological trauma as a result of false sexual assault allegations.

The protective order was put in place on Dec. 6 to prevent the “disclosure of the materials” with a concern that there would likely be a “disclosure of the documents to the entire world via the Internet.”

On Monday, defendants George Villegas, Jr. and Pam Villegas, David Sherk and Christy Sherk, David Seaman and Christine Seaman, and Cris Salancy and Kimberly Salancy, on behalf of themselves and their children, Meghan Villegas, K.S., C.S. and E.S., asked that the protective order loosen restrictions and that they be permitted to review the investigative materials. Any use of the materials must also “be done under seal” along with all deposition testimony.

Judge Mark Hornak ordered the Floods to respond to the motion by Feb. 8.

However, on Tuesday the Floods' lawyer, Craig Fishman, filed a response saying the request should be denied, as the original need for the order in its current state still stands.

Fishman argued that the Floods “have not had an opportunity to conduct forensic analysis of the mean girls' mobile phones or to subpoena their posts and texts on Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram and other applications.” The defendants, he said, possess this evidence, and therefore, “have not chosen to 'level the playing field' by providing this evidence.”

“(The) defendants are clearly upset that the facts pleaded in the case have been reported by the media and the mean girls are irate that their mean girl conduct has been viewed with disdain by the public,” Fishman wrote.

Not included in the defendants' joint filing was the Reina family, who remain unrepresented and who the other defendants contended would not be required to have the same access to materials. In his filing, Fishman said that limitations could not be set on the Reina family's access to materials if they were made available to the other defendants. Fishman filed on Dec. 5 for the court to enter a default judgment, meaning the Reina family's lack of action would result in judgment in favor of either the defendants or plaintiffs.

The court has not entered a default judgment yet, Fishman wrote, “because a hearing or jury trial is required to determine the value of plaintiffs' damages.”