The university's internal investigation into alleged discrimination by Penn State women's basketball coach Rene Portland is "nearing completion," a Penn State spokesman said yesterday.

"As to the specifics of what that means, I do not know," Penn State spokesman Tysen Kendig said.

Karen Doering, the attorney representing former Lady Lion Jen Harris, has been sharing information with Ken Lehrman, the director of the Office of Affirmative Action and head of the internal investigation.

Doering said it has been about two months since she has been contacted by Lehrman, indicating to her the findings should be released soon.

"I have not talked to Ken Lehrman in quite some time, so it would make me believe that the investigation would be done shortly," Doering said.

Lehrman was on vacation and unable to comment.

Harris has claimed in a lawsuit that Portland discriminated against her on the basis of race, gender and sexual orientation. A federal lawsuit was filed in the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania in Harrisburg on Dec. 21, which names Portland, Athletic Director Tim Curley and the university as defendants.

Attorneys from both sides have begun the process of exchanging documents this week as part of the limited discovery phase of litigation. Among the requests, Doering has asked for transcripts, personnel files and prior discrimination complaints.

Depositions will begin within a month and before the limited discovery period ends on May 1. Harris will not be among those questioned by her own representation.

"We would not depose our own witness," Doering said.

Both sides were asked to list possible witnesses in a case management report on Feb. 24. The defendants listed various Penn State faculty and staff, including former coaches and every Penn State teammate of Harris, excluding the other two players to leave the program in 2005, Amber Bland and Lisa Etienne.

Harris' representation, in turn, included Bland and Etienne on its list, along with Cindy Davies and Courtney Wicks, two other players who have alleged experiencing or witnessing discrimination by Portland.

After May 1, the court will order mediation, where the possibility of a settlement will be discussed. Portland, Curley and the university's representation have already motioned for the case to be dismissed. The judge will rule on that after mediation.

In the brief supporting the motion, the defendants claimed that the university's discrimination policy was not a legally binding contract between the school and its employees.

Penn State attorney Wendell Courtney has since clarified language in the legal argument written by associate Jim Horne, the attorney representing Curley and the university, in a closed-door meeting with the university Commission on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Equity.

During the 90-minute discussion, Courtney explained the difference between a policy, which Penn State has, and a contract, which Harris has claimed was broken. According to Courtney, a policy is stronger than a contract and enforceable by the university. He also said his firm would be more careful in wording future court filings.

According to LGBT co-chairwoman Susan Lucas, who spoke with Courtney, some of the language was not intended to be hurtful.

"Mr. Courtney assured us that discrimination is not allowed at Penn State," Lucas said. "I don't want to speak for the whole community, but some people were shocked, some people were upset. We have a long way to go before this whole thing is resolved."

Courtney and Horne would not respond to requests for comment.

Eric Patridge, the only student member of the commission, said in a speech to the Faculty Senate on March 14 that there have been multiple closed-door meetings with university stakeholders over the legal situation, but that "the closed-door conversations are lacking."

"The university is holding these closed-door meetings without facilitating public discussion," Patridge said. "It is one thing to have a discussion; it's another thing to be lectured to."

Other than for public relations purposes, Doering said, the defense's rewording would have no future impact on the legal process.

"There was nothing legally inappropriate," she said. "But it certainly did exacerbate the perception in the community."