Princeton University recently achieved a significant victory in its legal battle against officials from the Eastern Orthodox Church regarding the alleged looting of manuscripts from a Greek monastery during World War I. The recent ruling by a New Jersey federal judge allows Princeton to depose the monastery’s non-testifying expert, enabling the university to gather additional evidence supporting its statute of limitations defense.

The initial lawsuit, filed in December 2018, alleged that Bulgarian guerrillas unlawfully took four Eastern Orthodox texts from a monastery in Northern Greece in 1917. These texts eventually ended up in the possession of the university – part of the university’s collection of Greek manuscripts, acquired by Princeton in the early 20th century. The Church argues that the university’s acquisition and possession of these manuscripts are illegal and demands their return.

In the original legal filings, the University not only reaffirmed its claim of “lawful possession of the manuscripts” but also contended that it lacked the necessary knowledge or information to determine whether the plaintiffs were ever the rightful owners of the texts in question.

The Eastern Orthodox Church contends that these manuscripts were stolen during World War I and rightfully belong to the monastery.

Princeton has consistently refuted these allegations, arguing that the statute of limitations has expired, rendering the lawsuit invalid. The university further maintains that the manuscripts were obtained legally and that no evidence exists to substantiate theft claims. Princeton countered back in 2019 that evidence indicates that two of the manuscripts in question were gifted to St. Andrew of the Russians in 1877, which predates the alleged removal in 1917.

According to a Law360 report, a recent ruling by the federal judge in New Jersey grants Princeton the opportunity to depose the monastery’s non-testifying expert, a significant development in gathering evidence to fortify its statute of limitations defense. This ruling presents a substantial victory for Princeton, allowing the university to delve into the provenance of the manuscripts and bolster its position against the accusations.

The case underscores the ongoing dispute surrounding the ownership of cultural artifacts and the complexities associated with determining the origins of historical objects. As the New York Times reported back in 2018, while the Eastern Orthodox Church insists that the manuscripts were stolen during World War I and should be rightfully returned to the monastery, Princeton contends that the manuscripts were acquired legitimately and rejects any evidence of theft.

However, it is essential to note that the case is far from reaching a final resolution, leaving uncertainty about its outcome. Suppose Princeton’s deposition of the monastery’s non-testifying expert provides the university with more evidence supporting its statute of limitations defense. In that case, their chances of success are far greater than they appeared to be weeks ago. While the recent ruling represents a pivotal advancement in the ongoing legal clash between Princeton and the Eastern Orthodox Church, this legal fight is far from over.

Aron Solomon, JD, is the chief legal analyst for Esquire Digital