Timeline for Rose Art Museum lawsuit finalized
The date of the first hearing regarding the lawsuit filed against the University by three members of the Rose Art Museum Board of Overseers and the deadlines for filing motions of dismissal and preliminary injunctions were set at the case management conference that took place Tuesday, Sept. 1, according to University outside legal counsel Thomas Reilly.The motion to dismiss a case or to file a preliminary injunction, an injunction that takes place before the verdict is determined, must be filed on or before Sept. 15, according to a schedule provided by Jill Butterworth, deputy press secretary for Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. The first hearing is scheduled for Oct. 13, and the deadline to oppose the motion to dismiss the case is Oct. 6.
The lawsuit was filed by Rose overseers Jonathan Lee, Meryl Rose and Lois Foster July 27 in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts and was subsequently transferred to the Suffolk Probate Court. The lawsuit seeks to maintain the Rose's collection by stating that the University's decision to close the museum and sell its paintings would violate both the museum's ethical codes and Brandeis' commitment to the Rose family to maintain the museum solely as a public museum.
Lee, the chairman of the Rose Board of Overseers, said that he and the other plaintiffs were filing a preliminary injunction and that they were confident it would succeed.
"I feel very good about the way the court system is handling our case," said Lee. "We are getting huge attention and very rapid treatment and are having a lot of success. . We are being dealt with in an extremely positive way by the attorney general's office."
Reilly said that the case management conference went as expected in the sense that it set a schedule for the case and that the University would file a motion to dismiss the case on or before Sept. 15. He added that he was confident that Brandeis' version of the story would emerge as the case continues to unfold.
Reilly said that while the opposing counsel had the right to file a preliminary injunction, the injunction would be superfluous: it would be implemented to prevent Brandeis from selling art, but the University has no plans to do so. "There are exhibitions planned throughout the fall. As we speak, there are no transactions to sell art that are in place right now," said Reilly.
Butterworth wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that the attorney general's office could not comment on an ongoing litigation.
Reilly said, "I am confident that we will get to the truth in this case. The truth is that the trustees and the administration are doing exactly what they are supposed to do, which is preserve their commitment to academic excellence."
However, Lee condemned the University's claims of prioritizing scholarship, saying that the Rose is part of Brandeis' academic excellence, and the lawsuit is seeking to display the core values of Brandeis.
"The University is using the line of attack that we don't care about the University, just the esoteric art collection. We are trying to save this piece of Brandeis because it's a crown jewel," he said.
"It's unfortunate that Brandeis can find itself in a situation that it may have to sell art, but it is doing so for the right reasons. That is the essential truth of this case," Reilly added.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Justice.