A federal judge ordered Wilkins on Monday to allow access to computer files after a lawyer said township officials might have destroyed evidence in a lawsuit.

Lawyer Michael Lorence and a forensic computer expert then spent most of the day examining computers used by Manager Rebecca Bradley, Assistant Manager Paul Vargo and police Chief Keith Guthrie.

Mr. Lorence represents Patrick Hearn, a disabled road crew worker who sued Wilkins in January. He asked Chief U.S. District Judge Donetta Ambrose last Thursday to order U.S. marshals to seize township computers.

He had evidence, according to his motion, suggesting that "defendants Vargo and Bradley have destroyed or are in the process of destroying evidence."

"Neither myself or Mr. Vargo have destroyed any township information," Mrs. Bradley told the Post-Gazette.

The dispute stems from a May 4 court order requiring the township to provide Mr. Lorence with computer records. Despite numerous reminders, he told the court, the township has not done so.

Mr. Lorence said he asked defense attorney John Kwasneski on June 20 to tell township officials that his computer expert could detect alterations or deletions of electronic files.

A few days later, John Gibbons, who lives next to the house that Mr. Vargo and Mrs. Bradley share on Gardenia Drive, saw pieces of electronic equipment outside. Mr. Gibbons and the two township officials have been feuding for several months, and he was aware of the Hearn lawsuit. He notified Mr. Lorence.

"I didn't know what it was," he told the Post-Gazette. "It looked suspicious ... but I don't know if there's anything incriminating."

On July 26, he noticed a computer part on his neighbors' driveway that had not been taken in the weekly trash pickup. He called Patrick Hearn's wife, Chris, who came and photographed it.

The next day, Mr. Lorence asked the court to intervene. He submitted as evidence three photographs that appear to depict a circuit board.

The item in question, according to Mrs. Bradley, is from a broken, 11-year-old printer that had been kept in a bedroom that Mr. Vargo recently cleaned out for renovations.

Mr. Lorence's motion cited two other incidents. An unnamed witness -- Mr. Gibbons said it was him -- saw many items being loaded into a truck and taken away, instead of being put out with the trash. And Mrs. Bradley allegedly told an employee to destroy electronic files or face disciplinary action.

Mr. Gibbons saw boxes of clothing that were being given away, Mrs. Bradley told the Post-Gazette. The employee she allegedly told to destroy files is Chief Guthrie.

"I have never ordered any employee to destroy evidence in any case," she said. "I also cannot fathom what information the chief of police could possibly have that is relevant to this case."

Chief Guthrie said he had no idea what either side is talking about. He also has filed a federal lawsuit naming Mrs. Bradley, Mr. Vargo, and four township commissioners. He claims they retaliated against him for reporting misconduct and refusing to fix tickets. The township has asked the court to dismiss that case because a recent Supreme Court ruling bars such claims.

Last week, Mr. Lorence asked for a hearing at which Mrs. Bradley and Mr. Vargo would have to "show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court" for not disclosing electronic records and for destruction of evidence.

Judge Ambrose and the attorneys held a telephone conference Friday, and it was agreed that the hearing would be held Monday. Later, it was rescheduled to Sept. 8.

Mr. Lorence and his computer expert showed up at the township building at 9 a.m. Monday to copy computer files. They were blocked when township officials said they had not been given notice.

That sparked a telephone conference with the judge, and at 10:08 a.m., she ordered the township to grant access.

A dispute over which computer would be examined first led to another telephone conference. Judge Ambrose ordered Mrs. Bradley's computers "to be taken first."

Mr. Lorence and his computer expert worked at the township building late into the night.

Once the computer files are examined, township solicitor Gary Matta said, "I don't think they will see that the accusations are accurate."

He referred questions to Mr. Kwasneski, who represents the township's insurance company. Mr. Kwasneski did not respond to a message.

Mrs. Bradley characterized Monday's court-ordered intervention as a fishing expedition.

"This entire situation has gotten to the point of ridiculous," she messaged by e-mail to the Post-Gazette. "My reputation and Mr. Vargo's are being defamed and, quite frankly, I've had enough."

A settlement conference is scheduled for Sept. 7 in the Hearn case.

Mr. Hearn has undergone five operations on his back for an on-the-job injury he claimed in 2001. He claims the township fired him in retaliation for filing a worker's compensation claim and then, after the state ruled he was permanently disabled, canceled his health insurance.

The lawsuit singles out Mr. Vargo for allegedly orchestrating a campaign to deny him benefits. Mrs. Bradley and three commissioners also are named. Mr. Vargo has stated that he may not comment on lawsuits but is confident the township followed proper procedures.

The township contends that any injury or damage he suffered were not caused by the township and that state law immunizes government officials from such lawsuits.