"The occurrence of a break-in in a differentresidence occupied by a high-profile target fouryears prior to the incident at issue affords nobasis for asserting a claim of negligence againstDean Jewett individually," Riley says.

Riley argues further that previous breakins and theinstallation of alarms are irrelevant because pastincidents were not 'sufficiently similar innature, location, or recency of occurrence."

In addition to the break-in at Jewett's, therewere two break-ins at Hastings'--in 1981 and 1982after his alarm had been installed.

In his deposition, Hastings testified thatduring the second break-in, "a man gained entry byphysically breaking the [sliding door] lock andphysically moving the door so that he could liftthe door up and over the slide bolt and opened thedoor and came into the house."

Hastings said he wasn't at home when thebreak-in occurred.

Attorneys for the plaintiff are arguing thatHastings' testimony shows the sliding doors werevulnerable to break-in.

"These units had sliding glass doors mounted insuch a way as to make them particularly prone tobreak-ins," says a recent filing of the plaintiffin the case.

The plaintiff's attorneys argue that theUniversity installed Hastings' and Jewett's alarmsbecause they are important figures on campus.

Both Hastings and Jewett testified in theirdeposition that they were able to get alarmsinstalled in their apartments without having toofficially ask the University.

Jewett testified that he unofficially requestedthe installation of an alarm in his apartment,police suggested that Jewett might want an alarm,and " I indicated to them that I thought thatwould be a good idea," he said.

The dean testified that although he did notfollow up on that initial request, "at some laterpoint in time an alarm was installed."

But in his deposition, Lichten, the director ofthe Office for Physical Resources, appeared toboost the plaintiff's argument that Jewettreceived special treatment. Lichten testified thatthe decision to install the alarm in Jewett'sresidence was based on the dean's status as a"public figure" on campus.

A `Lost' Police Report

In the discovery process, the Universityrepeatedly fought efforts by the plaintiff'sattorneys to secure a police report on the Jewettbreak-in.

In fact, Riley wrote to Weissberg that thereport could not be found. "We have not been ableto find any record of a break-in at Dean Jewett'sresidence in Faculty Row," Riley said.

Later during the trial, the University producedthe police report, which, contrary to Riley'sclaim, Harvard officials had located immediatelyafter the 1991 rape--and before the suit wasfiled.

The difficulties with discovery will likelydelay the case further. A final pretrialconference, scheduled for March 2, will probablybe postponed, Weissberg said.

Weissberg said she expects the trial to bescheduled for sometime later this year. Whether itwill go to trial, she said, "depends on Harvard'swillingness to settle."