Dassault Systemes,SA v. Childress

Filing 114

ORDER denying 111 Motion to Stay. Signed by District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DASSAULT SYSTEMES, S.A.,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 09-10534
Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

v.
KEITH CHILDRESS
d/b/a PRACTICAL CATIA TRAINING,
Defendant.
/

ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION FOR STAY
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Immediate
Stay of Proceedings Pending An Investigation into Breaches of Grand Jury Secrecy [dkt 111].
Because Defendant has filed his motion has an ex parte motion, no response is necessary. The Court
finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in Defendant’s motion such that
the decision process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Therefore, pursuant to E.D.
Mich. L.R. 7.1 (f)(2), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion be resolved on the brief submitted,
without oral argument. For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion for a stay is DENIED.
II. BACKGROUND
In general, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant, alleging that Defendant’s conduct
at his business infringes on Plaintiff’s copyright and trademark rights. During the course of this
action, Plaintiff has issued subpoenas to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”).
The subpoenas seek information from the FBI that it obtained during a search of Defendant’s
business. After the search, a grand jury convened regarding Defendant’s conduct at his business.

Defendant has continued to represent during the course of this action that Plaintiff is
repeatedly attempting to discover matters that are protected from disclosure as matters occurring
before the grand jury under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). On July 26, 2012, Defendant filed the instant ex
parte emergency motion to stay the proceedings, along with a Petition for an investigation into
purported violations of Fed. R. Crim P. 6(e)(2) (the “Petition”). The Petition requests that the Court
begin an investigation into who allegedly leaked information occurring before the grand jury to
Plaintiff. Meanwhile, Defendant’s instant motion requests that the Court stay this action during the
investigation (assuming the Court will grant the Petition).1
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under Sixth Circuit precedent, a district court has the inherent power to stay a proceeding.
Ohio Envtl. Council v. United States, Dist. Ct., S.D. Ohio, 565 F.2d 393, 396 (6th Cir. 1977). The
party requesting a stay must show that there is need to delay the case, and such delay will not cause
harm to the other parties. Id. The district court’s decision to grant or deny a stay is reviewed for
an abuse of discretion. Id.
IV. ANALYSIS
Defendant’s request to stay is denied. Defendant fails to show that there is a need to delay

1

The Court notes that this case was filed on February 12, 2009. Defendant has maintained
throughout the pendency of this case that matters before the grand jury have been leaked in violation
of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). More than three years later, Defendant now files the instant motion
requesting a stay of the case pending resolution of the Petition. Significantly, Defendant let this
extended time pass before seeking such relief, yet labels the instant motion an “Emergency” “Ex
parte” motion. There is no basis for Defendant to consistently use such labels when filing his
pleadings. For instance, on June 20, 2012, Defendant filed a motion he labeled an “Emergency.”
As evidence of the fact such motion was not an “Emergency,” Defendant then requested from the
Court at a scheduling conference, seven additional days to file a reply to his own “Emergency”
motion. The Court advises Defendant to first consider whether such labels are appropriate when
filing future pleadings with the Court.
2

this case. Defendant primarily relies on the fact that the Court will investigate the alleged breaches
of the grand jury. The Petition, however, has not been fully briefed, and thus, whether the Court will
order an investigation regarding the grand jury has not yet been decided. When the Petition is
considered, the Court may stay the case at that time. Defendant also raises the argument that a stay
is needed based on Defendant’s pending petition for writ of certiorari (“Writ of Cert”) before the
United States Supreme Court. As the Court recently decided, Defendant’s Writ of Cert does not
effect this Court’s jurisdiction and does not provide a basis to stay this case. Third, Defendant avers
that Plaintiff has unofficially stayed this case while the parties discuss a resolution of this case,
indicating that Plaintiff will not be harmed by a stay. Defendant’s assertion lacks merit. The parties
unofficial stay does not affect this Court’s power to ensure that this case proceeds. Furthermore,
unofficially agreeing to not file motions for several weeks is not the equivalent of staying a case for
investigation into breaches of grand jury secrecy. Such an investigation will far exceed the
unofficial stay Plaintiff has agreed to with respect to the filing of motions. As such, the Court
denies granting Defendant’s request to stay.
V. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s
Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Immediate Stay of Proceedings Pending An Investigation into
Breaches of Grand Jury Secrecy [dkt 111] is DENIED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff
LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 31, 2012
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record
by electronic or U.S. mail on July 31, 2012.

S/Marie E. Verlinde
Case Manager
[phone]

4