Before the Southern District of New York is the issue of whether Columbia University mismanaged employee retirement funds. But before the court can go forward with that issue, one thing must be decided – should vaccinated witnesses be forced to testify in person?
15 witnesses set to appear in Columbia University’s retirement plan lawsuit have stated that they would rather not testify in person. The retirement plan participants (the plaintiffs) feel that these witnesses should not get off so easy. They have requested that the judge order the defendants to provide the “current and anticipated” vaccination status for each of these reluctant witnesses.
When giving reasons why they did not want to testify in person, 15 witnesses said that they preferred not to or that they felt uncomfortable doing so. The plaintiffs strongly objected, arguing that video testimony pales in comparison to having witnesses appear in person.
“No matter how prepared witnesses are for video testimony, there are inherent challenges in testifying remotely, and witnesses who testify remotely deliver less effective testimony.”
The lawsuit participants state that given the “extraordinary efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines” and the safety precautions being taken within the courthouse, vaccinated witnesses should be required to testify in person.
Is it reasonable to require witnesses to disclose their vaccination status and force them to testify in person? Or is this going too far? That is for Judge George B. Daniels to decide.
Sources
Cates et al v. The Trustees of Columbia University
Motion for Ruling Under Rule 43
Witness Vaccine Status at Issue Before Columbia Retirement Trial