CHRISTIANSBURG -- Oral arguments in two $10 million civil lawsuits brought by families of two women killed in the April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech shootings are scheduled for Dec. 14.

The date was set by order of Special Judge William Alexander of Franklin County, who is assigned to preside over the hearing in Montgomery County Circuit Court.

Alexander will decide if the defendants, including New River Valley Community Services board directors and counselors from Tech's Cook Counseling Center who interacted with shooter Seung-Hui Cho more than a year before the killings, are immune to civil action.

The suits were brought by the families of the late Julia Pryde and Erin Peterson and allege that, despite a documented history of troubling behavior and mental health issues, the counselors failed to intervene and, therefore, failed to protect the campus community from harm.

The suits also fault Tech police and university officials for delaying a campuswide warning that a shooter might be at large. They further allege that Tech police advised the university's policy group that the first two shootings at West Ambler Johnston Hall were likely the result of a "lover's quarrel," thereby delaying response that might have prevented the subsequent Norris Hall shootings.

Officials have said Cho shot Emily Hilscher and Ryan Clark about 7:15 a.m. in West Ambler Johnston. The Norris Hall shootings began about 9:40 a.m. Tech officials sent out the first campuswide warning at 9:26 a.m.

A motions hearing in the civil suits was held Thursday morning by telephone between Alexander and the attorneys, according to court records. The judge's ruling was unavailable Friday, and Alexander's office declined to comment on the hearing.

Alexander was appointed to oversee the case by the Virginia Supreme Court after all five judges in the 27th Circuit, which includes Montgomery County, recused themselves in July. The Circuit Court judges cited ties to many of the defendants as conflicts of interest.

In their filings, defense attorneys have argued that mental health, police and university officials, as agents of the commonwealth of Virginia, are immune to the suits.

Ed McNelis, attorney for Cook Center counselors and former center Director Robert Miller, has further petitioned the court to shield his clients from discovery actions, such as certain records requests and depositions.

Miller has already responded to some discovery actions in the case, including turning over student mental health records he removed from his office in February 2006 after a demotion. Miller said through his attorney that he mistakenly packed mental health records pertaining to Cho and several other students with his personal papers while packing up his office.

Montgomery County Commonwealth's Attorney Brad Finch declined in August to press charges against Miller for his handling of the records, saying a Virginia State Police investigation found no evidence of criminal intent. State police declined to release any details of that investigation.

The disappearance of the records was a source of consternation for victims' families and a state panel that investigated the shootings. Cho's family released the records in August at Gov. Tim Kaine's request. Tech officials immediately posted the records on the university's Web site.

Recovery of the records caused dozens of survivors and family members of the dead to call on Kaine to reconvene the special panel that investigated the shootings and the university's handling of the tragedy.

In its original report, the panel criticized officials for failing to "connect the dots" in Cho's case. The report also found that the community services board failed to follow up on Cho, despite his involuntary commitment and an order from a special justice that he receive outpatient treatment.

Kaine declined to reconvene the panel, saying at the time that nothing in the recovered records changed the panel's findings.

"We knew that he had sought treatment. We knew that the follow-up was not appropriate. The panel report was clear on that. Obviously, that was the counseling center's issue. But it's also pretty heavily the community services boards," Kaine said.

"It's really the community services boards and the local way that services are provided in the community that I thought was most culpable in this situation. That's why we put all this extra money in community mental health services ... and put extra staff on to really monitor whether the community services boards were doing what they were ordered to do."

Staff writer Michael Sluss contributed to this report.