"Around the same time, CIGNA started questioning the positive nature of CedarCrestone's weekly reports, and Xerox began pressing CedarCrestone for confirmation of their accuracy," the filing states.
One critical date in the project was supposed to be Sept. 19, 2011, according to Xerox. At that time, CedarCrestone was supposed to provide "product and coding" to Xerox in order to begin some testing.
But CedarCrestone didn't have the work product ready, and was not even close to finishing it, according to Xerox.
The next day, CedarCrestone admitted that it was "substantially behind," Xerox's filing states.
By October, Xerox determined that the project's planned go-live date of Jan. 2 would be missed, and to avoid further delays "began working seven days a week."
But CedarCrestone officials failed to participate in meetings and calls, according to Xerox. CedarCrestone then sent Xerox a demand letter on Jan. 19, asking for about $750,000 in payment, and stopped work completely on the job by the end of that month, the filing adds.
After Xerox began making other plans to finish the work as fast as possible, "CedarCrestone failed to participate in crucial meetings and conference calls, pulled its employees off the project, and, eventually, stopped working on the project altogether," it states.
Later, CedarCrestone refused to help Xerox or its new systems integrator, it adds.
As a result, the project's planned go-live date was not met, "and Xerox was damaged severely," the filing states. The PeopleSoft upgrade ultimately went live in July.
Xerox is seeking assorted damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
The radically divergent positions taken by CedarCrestone and Xerox may make for a difficult court battle if the case goes to trial.
But there are a few things that can be concluded now, according to analyst Ray Wang, CEO of Constellation Research, who viewed the companies' court filings.
"These he-said, she-said battles get there when both sides have exhausted all options," Wang said. "There's always a bit of truth on both ends. But the bottom line is, the customer loses when this happens."
CIGNA did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.
CedarCrestone had already been caught up in a high-profile legal battle with Oracle, which sued the company in September on grounds it was offering third-party support for PeopleSoft customers in an illegal manner.
Oracle also terminated CedarCrestone's partner status.
Third-party providers can't give customers new application upgrades, but they provide ongoing tax and regulatory updates and in some cases technical support for a price they claim is far less than what vendors charge.