The University's motion to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to preserve the Rose Art Museum's collection was not approved at a hearing that took place today, wrote Emily La Grassa, the communications director for Attorney General Martha Coakley, in an e-mail to the Justice. La Grassa wrote that Judge Stahlin had 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."

Thomas Reilly, the University's lawyer for the case, declined to comment on the fact that the case would continue because the judge had not yet ruled on arguments in the case.

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.

A trial date was also set at the hearing for June 29 and July 1, 2010, La Grassa wrote in her e-mail.

Jonathan Lee, one of the plaintiffs in the case and the chairman of the Rose Board of Overseers, said in a phone interview with the Justice that the attorney general's office asked to investigate the University for violating donor intent, a request to which all parties agreed.

Lee also said that such an investigation entailed 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.

"I feel that the collection [of art] seems to be protected in the interim," said Lee.

La Grassa could not be reached for further comment about the investigation by press time.

Thomas Reilly, the University's lawyer for the case, said that the Attorney General's investigation had been underway since last spring and that it was merely formalized at today's hearing.

"We welcome the Attorney General reviewing the matter in its entirety. We welcome it and we agree to it," said Reilly, adding that it was "absolutely nothing new."

Reilly added that he was pleased with the events of the hearing and that Judge Stahlin gave both sides ample opportunity to argue their cases.

Edward Dangel, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, had filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the University from selling art on Sept. 22. Lee said that Judge Stahlin had imposed a limited preliminary injunction, prohibiting the University from selling art provided by the plaintiffs. Dangel could not be reached for comment by press time.

Lee explained that the case will now enter the "discovery process," in which each side requests document and information they deem relevant from the other side. He added that he expects this process to be contentious.

" There will be big fights about what we get to discover," he said.

Judith Sizer, the University's legal counsel, 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.

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

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