The question of when and how the University can deny students access to educational and research data maintained by the institution was considered yesterday in Washtenaw County Circuit Court.

Judge Timothy Connors heard the motion by the University to dismiss Weingrad v. Lampert. The case involves Rackham student and doctoral candidate Peri Weingrad, who filed a lawsuit alleging that Education Prof. Magdalene Lampert improperly kept important research information from her while she was working to complete her dissertation.

"In essence, it is not a complicated case," David Nacht, Weingrad's attorney, told Connors while in court, describing the events that led up to the lawsuit.

According to the brief filed by Nacht, Weingrad has been a student at the University since 1984. After completing her undergraduate studies, she chose to do her graduate work with the University's linguistics and educational studies programs.

As part of her dissertation, Weingrad began working closely with Lampert, who also served as her academic advisor. Weingrad's dissertation, which studied what words teachers should use to best communicate with their students, focused on videotapes showing Lampert teaching a class of fifth graders.

Weingrad spent five years working with the tapes before Lampert denied her access to the office that held them.

According to Nacht, Weingrad has been unable to graduate from the University because of Lampert's decision. The reasons why Lampert decided to keep the videotapes from Weingard are still in question.

Weingrad alleges that Lampert made the decision on a retaliatory basis for telling police officers about a sexual harassment incident involving a former University professor.

On Nov. 29, 1998, Weingrad called police alleging that a former Music professor who had been sexually harassing her, Dickran Atamian, assaulted her while she was in the School of Education building working on her dissertation.

Lampert's attorney, Timothy Howlett, wrote in his brief that Lampert decided to deny Weingrad access to the tapes after Atamian called her and threatened to tear apart the room holding the tapes, believing Weingrad had personal property of his stored there. Lampert had not been told about the sexual harassment incident at that time, the brief states.

Weingrad's brief says Lampert overstepped her boundaries and the University's limitations when she decided not to continue sharing the research material with Weingrad.

"At its heart, Lampert's explanation as to why she needed to remove Weingrad from the videotapes on December 1, 1998 is not credible," the brief says.

The brief also states that Lampert lied during a formal University hearing concerning the issue and failed to follow University policy for denying Weingrad access to the videotapes.

"This case is replete with facts demonstrating bad faith - including outright lies at a formal University hearing by the Dean of the School of Education; failures of the University to adhere to normal academic standards or to follow its own policies in significant respects, such as failing to investigate alleged sexual harassment," the plaintiff's brief states.

But Lampert's brief says neither Lampert nor the University did anything wrong.

"Mr. Atamian at the time of this incident was not an employee of the University," he told Connors, referring to the sexual harassment incident on Nov. 29, 1998, when Weingrad called police to the School of Education after Atamian attempted to physically assault her and threatened to kill her. "(The University's) public safety department addressed the issue."

Howlett's brief also states that several attempts to give the resources to Weingrad through other methods were made, which Weingrad is denying.

No decision regarding the motion to dismiss was made yesterday.