Dassault Systemes,SA v. Childress

Filing 566

ORDER (1) Directing Plaintiff to Produce Document to Defendant, (2) Granting Defendant's 562 Motion to File a Reply Brief, and (3) Denying Defendant's 559 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)

Case 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH ECF No. 566, PageID.17344 Filed 01/28/22 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DASSAULT SYSTEMES, SA
Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-cv-10534
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
KEITH CHILDRESS,
Defendant.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER (1) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PRODUCE DOCUMENT TO
DEFENDANT, (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO FILE A
REPLY BRIEF (ECF No. 562), AND (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 559)
This civil action between Plaintiff Dassault Systemes, SA and Defendant
Keith Childress is more than ten years old. The parties took discovery for a lengthy
period of time, tried certain claims before a jury, and completed an appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In 2020, that court remanded
the action to this Court for further proceedings. (See Sixth Cir. Order, ECF No. 536.)
On April 19, 2021, Childress filed a motion to re-open discovery. (See Mot.,
ECF No. 550.) Childress requested, among other things, that Dassault “produce all
documents that Dassault withheld and/or redacted based on relevancy and/or
privilege (work product and/or attorney-client) and all other communications
between Dassault agents or between Dassault agents and Government authorities
1

Case 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH ECF No. 566, PageID.17345 Filed 01/28/22 Page 2 of 4

regarding Childress or his School.” (Id., PageID.16581.) On October 26, 2021, the
Court granted Childress’ motion in part and denied the motion in part. (See Order,
ECF No. 557.) The Court granted the motion to the extent that it asked the Court to
undertake an in camera review of all of the documents that Dassault redacted for
relevancy. (See id.) The Court declined to order Dassault to produce documents that
it had withheld and/or redacted on the basis of the privilege and denied the motion
in all other respects.
While the Court was undertaking its relevancy review, Childress filed a
motion for reconsideration of the Court’s October 26 ruling. (See Mot. for
Reconsideration, ECF No. 559.) In that motion, Childress “ask[ed] the Court to
modify [the October 26 order] in one respect.” (Id., PageID.17201.) Childress asked
the Court to ‘review documents withheld and redacted for ‘privilege’ (i.e., attorney
client and work product).” (Id.) Childress insisted that the Court should undertake
that review because Dassault “inappropriately redacted and withheld critical
evidence under the guise of work product.” (Id., PageID.17206.) Childress did not
ask the Court to reconsider any other portion of the October 26 order.1 (See id.)

1

Childress has also filed a motion to file a reply brief in further support of his motion
for reconsideration. (See Mot. to File Reply Br., ECF No. 562.) That motion is
GRANTED.
2

Case 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH ECF No. 566, PageID.17346 Filed 01/28/22 Page 3 of 4

The Court held an on-the-record status conference in this action on January
28, 2022, to (1) share with the parties the results of its in camera review of the
documents Dassault had redacted for relevancy and (2) issue a ruling on Childress’
motion for reconsideration.
The Court began with its in camera review of Dassault’s relevancy redactions.
As the Court explained to the parties, it concluded that nearly all of Dassault’s
redactions were appropriate. It did, however, have a question on one portion of an
email exchange that Dassault had redacted. The entire email exchange containing
the portion in question is found at Bates Numbers DS-00004056 – DS-00004060.
Per the agreement of the parties on the record, the Court conducted an in camera
discussion with only counsel for Dassault so that it could better understand the
context of the email exchange at issue. That discussion took place on a sealed record
that will not be made available to Childress. Following that discussion, the Court
reconvened with counsel for both parties and ordered that Dassault produce an
unredacted copy of the portion of the identified email exchange that is found at Bates
Number DS-00004057. The Court also provided Dassault the alternative option of
producing an unredacted copy of the entire email exchange at issue to Childress.
Dassault shall produce the underacted email exchange to Childress by no later than
February 9, 2022.

3

Case 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH ECF No. 566, PageID.17347 Filed 01/28/22 Page 4 of 4

Once Childress receives the unredacted email exchange from Dassault, he
shall review the exchange and determine if he believes any follow-up discovery is
necessary. If he does wish to take any follow-up discovery, he shall describe that
discovery in writing to Dassault. The parties shall then conduct a substantive meet
and confer to determine if they can come to an agreement regarding any follow-up
discovery. Once the parties complete this meet and confer process, they shall inform
the Court. The Court will then schedule a status conference. During that conference,
the Court will either (1) set a schedule for the agreed-upon follow-up discovery, or
(2) resolve any disputes regarding that discovery.
Finally, during the January 28 status conference, the Court issued its ruling on
Childress’ motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 559.) For the reasons explained on
the record, that motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2022

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on January 28, 2022, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
[phone]

4