DXC Technology Services LLC v. Omnicom Group, Inc.

Background

DXC Technology Services LLC asked to file a letter-motion seeking an informal conference about compelling discovery in redacted form and to file an exhibit under seal. Unisys Corporation, a non-party, supported the request to seal. Omnicom Group, Inc. and Unisys filed responses concerning the requested discovery conference.

DXC sought two categories of documents from Omnicom and Unisys: (1) status reports, issue logs, presentations, and other reports concerning Omnicom’s performance under its contract with Unisys and obstacles faced by Unisys in its own performance; and (2) communications about those performance issues or obstacles, including communications concerning default notices or other performance complaints.

Sealing and Redaction

The Court applied the three-step standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga: determining whether the materials were judicial documents, assessing the weight of the public-access presumption, and balancing competing interests against that presumption.

The Court found that the documents were judicial documents because they supported a motion to compel discovery and would presumably help resolve it. The presumption of public access was not particularly strong because the materials related to a motion to compel further discovery rather than a motion that would dispose of claims. The Court also found compelling countervailing interests because DXC and Unisys were competitors and the documents contained confidential proprietary business information about how Unisys managed projects and the performance factors it considered important. The Court found that the documents therefore met the standard for sealing and redaction.

Discovery Conference and Required Steps

Omnicom stated that it was willing to produce the first category of requested documents and asked the Court to deny that request as moot. Unisys made the same point. The Court also noted that Omnicom had told DXC that it was confirming the completeness of its production and evaluating DXC’s request to expand that production. Unisys argued that DXC had filed its conference request prematurely.

The Court GRANTED DXC’s request for an informal conference under Local Civil Rule 37.2 and the Court’s Individual Rules. The conference was scheduled by telephone for January 11, 2021, at 10:30 a.m.

Because several disputes appeared to be resolved, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer in person or by telephone, in good faith, within two weeks after the Order was filed. The parties were also ordered to file a joint letter of no more than three pages by January 6, 2021, describing the result of the meet-and-confer and identifying any remaining disputes and the documents DXC still sought to compel.

The Clerk was directed to terminate the motions pending at Docket Entries 50 and 51.