The first hearing for the lawsuit concerning the Rose Art Museum took place last Tuesday, during which Judge Jeremy A. Stahlin ruled that the plaintiffs had legal standing to proceed with their case and begin the discovery process. The attorney general has also obtained a civil investigative demand to investigate all University documents pertaining to the Rose, Edward T. Dangel, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a phone interview with the Justice.

Emily LaGrassa, the communications director for Attorney General Martha Coakley, wrote in an Oct. 13 e-mail to the Justice that Stahlin has allowed the plaintiffs to remain a part of the lawsuit in order to show that "their gifts to the Rose should be returned to them under theories known as equitable reversion and fraud."

The lawsuit, filed on July 27 by Rose overseers Jonathan Lee, Meryl Rose and Lois Foster, seeks to maintain the Rose collection by stating that the University's decision to close it and sell its paintings would violate museum ethical codes.

The lawsuit also states that the University's decision violates its commitment to the Rose family to maintain the museum solely as a public museum.

Two trial dates were set at the hearing for June 29 and July 1, 2010, LaGrassa wrote in her Oct. 13 e-mail.

LaGrassa confirmed in an e-mail to the Justice that the attorney general's office requested and received a civil investigative demand at the hearing on Tuesday, which opened the office's official investigation into the University's possible sale of art.

LaGrassa wrote that Brandeis is cooperating with this investigation and that she could not comment further.

Lee explained last week after the hearing that such an investigation enabled the attorney general's office to obtain all documents pertaining to the Rose and that the University would have to contact the office to give them a minimum of 30 days' notice before selling art.

Dangel said that he considers this investigation a significant event in the case.

"This indicates that the attorney general is becoming significantly involved in determining whether or not there have been any breaches of trust or whether any breaches of trust are planned," he said.

Dangel had filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the University from selling art on Sept. 22.

Lee said that Stahlin had imposed a limited preliminary injunction prohibiting the University only from selling art provided by the plaintiffs.

Dangel declined to comment on the limited injunction, emphasizing that he did not want to put too much stock in anything decided at the hearing.

"I won't get involved with whether I am pleased or displeased. It is now a question of the case proceeding at an appropriate rate," he said.

Judith Sizer, the University's legal counsel, wrote in an e-mail to the Justice that the Judge's decision regarding the plaintiffs' donations to the museum was not an injunction on the University.

The probate judge has dismissed the plaintiffs' entire case except as to their own gifts.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs may not "seek redress as to funds and/or works of art donated to the Rose Art Museum and/or Brandeis University by others," Sizer wrote.

Sizer explained that Thomas Reilly, the University's lawyer for the case, is drafting a stipulation, an agreement between attorneys that simplifies or shortens the litigation, that reflects the University's willingness to comply with Stahlin's ruling regarding the plaintiffs' assets in the museum.

The stipulation also provides the attorney general with ample notice before selling artwork, Sizer wrote in her e-mail.

Dangel explained that the case will now enter the "discovery process," in which each side requests documents and information they deem relevant from the other side.

He said he is currently working on the necessary paperwork for this procedure.

The process is scheduled to close on March 15, 2010, and there will be a hearing on Dec. 2 to discuss the scope of the process.

"I anticipate my requests will be broader than what the University wants," said Dangel.

Fred Hopengarten, an attorney and relative of the Rose family, told the Justice in a phone interview that Reilly sought to restrict the plaintiffs' access to documents at the hearing.

Hopengarten said that the University requested that the plaintiffs only obtain documents pertaining to the particular gifts they provided to the museum.

Hopengarten said that Stahlin denied that request, explaining that the rules of civil procedure permit a broader discovery.

"The University apparently fears the thread of knowledge," said Hopengarten.

Of the three plaintiffs, Meryl Rose and Lee donated $45,000 and $43,880, respectively Sizer wrote. "Neither Meryl Rose nor Jonathan Lee have donated any works of art to Brandeis," she wrote.

Plaintiff Lois Foster's late husband donated several pieces of artwork to the museum, Sizer wrote.

Sizer wrote in an Aug. 24 e-mail to the Justice that the University has been reviewing all museum-related documents since last December and has consequently restricted access to them until that review is completed.

She subsequently wrote that the plaintiffs' discovery requests should not impede this review.

Reilly said after the hearing that the University's role in the discovery process was dependent upon the plaintiffs' requests.

"We have to see what comes," he said.

Sizer wrote that the plaintiffs "will be provided with documents consistent with the rules governing discovery as to their remaining claims."

Hopengarten had previously attempted to access the archives in an effort to obtain a copy of the 1969 trust agreement between Abraham Sachar and Edward Rose.

A letter from Abraham Sachar to Edward Rose that accompanied and referred to the trust agreement was incorporated into the lawsuit.

In that letter, Sachar writes that Edward Rose and his wife, Bertha, have "made a magnificent art facility available and . are providing permanent maintenance and support."

According to Hopengarten, the University stated at the hearing that they had been unable to find the trust.

Dangel said he was surprised by the University's inability to find the trust, but he did not hold Brandeis accountable.

Sizer explained that Edward and Bertha Rose established a number of trusts in addition to their wills, and the University was not provided with copies of every trust.

She wrote that the University provided the plaintiffs with the 1974 trust, which Dangel confirmed he had received.



-Nashrah Rahman contributed reporting