Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Asset Management newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (May 5, 2020, 6:21 PM EDT) -- Columbia University workers are fighting the school's characterization of their request for pretrial paperwork deadlines in an ERISA class action as an attempt to gain an advantage in the litigation while university officials are busy handling Columbia's coronavirus response.
The workers told a New York federal judge Monday that they didn't know Columbia's officials were too occupied with pandemic-related tasks to prepare for a trial in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act suit, which alleges the school's retirement plan charged too-high fees and made underperforming investments.
"Defendant never mentioned an inability to meet with witnesses or in-house counsel in its discussions with plaintiffs," the workers wrote in a letter to U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels. "Plaintiffs are not, and could not be, attempting to gain a strategic advantage from information of which they were not aware."
In their initial request that Judge Daniels set pretrial deadlines and a trial date, made in an April 30 letter, the workers said they wanted the case to head to trial "as swiftly as possible in the current environment," given that the litigation "has been pending since August 2016."
They requested that Judge Daniels set a deadline of July 31 for pretrial paperwork and a trial date for sometime after Oct. 1.
Columbia responded to the request in a letter to Judge Daniels sent May 1, blasting the workers' attempt to set litigation deadlines during the coronavirus crisis.
"Plaintiffs may perceive a strategic benefit to forging ahead, given that Columbia's outside counsel cannot presently meet with its witnesses or Columbia's inside counsel," the university wrote. "The individuals who are critical to Columbia's defense are the same individuals who are coordinating the response of the university (and its medical school) to this crisis."
The underlying litigation accuses Columbia of keeping 22 underperforming investment funds in its retirement plans' lineup, failing to keep recordkeeping fees low and allowing the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association to have too much control over the plans, according to court documents. TIAA is not named as a defendant in the suit.
Judge Daniels ruled in March that the case should proceed to trial, accepting U.S. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron's recommendation that he deny the university's motion for summary judgment.
Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.
The workers are represented by Jerome J. Schlichter, Andrew D. Schlichter, Joel D. Rohlf and Scott T. Apking of Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP.
Columbia is represented by Nancy G. Ross, Jean-Marie L. Atamian, Brian D. Netter, E. Brantley Webb and Michelle N. Webster of Mayer Brown LLP.
The case is Cates et al. v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York et al., case number 1:16-cv-06524, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
--Editing by Haylee Pearl.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
