Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.OtherFiled Feb. 6, 2023

In re Omnicom Group. Inc. ERISA Litigation

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-04141
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureErisa
In one sentence

In re Omnicom Group ERISA Litigation: Judge McMahon was asked to temporarily seal pretrial filings, but the provided text shows no ruling.

Who this affects

The parties, non-party Mercer, and the public’s access to the identified pretrial filings could be affected by the requested temporary sealing.

What happened

In In re Omnicom Group Inc. ERISA Litigation, the parties jointly asked Judge McMahon for permission to file certain pretrial documents under seal temporarily, at least until trial began. The request concerned expert and fact-witness declarations and the parties’ proposed findings and legal conclusions.

The letter identified attorney-client information, proprietary information in plan-adviser presentations, and competitively sensitive pricing and bid information from recordkeepers. The parties said much of the information might become public when trial began and proposed either filing redacted versions or briefing whether the information should remain confidential at trial.

The provided text is a letter motion addressed to Judge McMahon, not an order ruling on the request. It does not show whether the court granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the sealing request.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
In re Omnicom Group. Inc. ERISA Litigation · No. 1:20-cv-04141
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Feb. 6, 2023

Document and request

The provided document is a joint letter motion from defendants’ counsel, submitted on behalf of the parties, requesting permission to file certain pretrial filings under seal. The letter was dated February 3, 2023, and the supplied case metadata lists February 6, 2023, as the filing date. The requested sealing was temporary, at least until the start of trial, which the letter said was scheduled to begin on February 22, 2023.

Information identified as confidential

The letter identified three categories of information:

  1. Information protected by the attorney-client privilege that, because of an exception for ERISA fiduciary communications, had been produced to plan participants but was said to warrant protection from disclosure to the general public.
  2. Proprietary information in presentations by plan adviser Mercer to the Administrative Committee.
  3. Competitively sensitive pricing information and bids from five recordkeepers obtained during a request-for-proposals process conducted by the Administrative Committee with Mercer’s assistance.

Documents listed in the request

The documents the parties sought to file under seal included expert declarations, declarations from fact witnesses, the parties’ proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and Plaintiffs’ Expert Declaration of Michael Geist. The letter specifically stated that the parties were not requesting to seal Plaintiffs’ Expert Declaration of W. Scott Simon or Plaintiffs’ Expert Gerald W. Buetow.

Proposed handling at trial

For use of the documents at trial, the parties proposed either submitting redacted copies consistent with the court’s rules and prior orders or briefing whether the identified categories of information could remain confidential at trial. The letter stated that plaintiffs agreed with the relief requested but took no position on the confidentiality assertions. It also stated that defendants would provide the court with unredacted copies.

Disposition shown in the provided text

The provided text does not contain a ruling by Judge McMahon. It does not state that the sealing request was granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part. Accordingly, the document shows a joint request, but no disposition is available from the text provided.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.