Dassault Systemes,SA v. Childress

Filing 568

ORDER Denying Defendant's 567 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)

Case 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH ECF No. 568, PageID.18039 Filed 02/15/22 Page 1 of 3

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 DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 567)
On April 19, 2021, Defendant Keith Childress filed a motion to re-open
discovery in this action. (See Mot., ECF No. 550.) Childress requested, among other
things, that Dassault “produce all documents that Dassault withheld and/or redacted
based on relevancy.” (Id., PageID.16581.)
On October 26, 2021, the Court granted the motion in part and agreed to
undertake an in camera review of all of the documents that Dassault redacted for
relevancy. (See Order, ECF No. 557.)

The Court conducted that review and

concluded that nearly all of Dassault’s relevancy redactions were appropriate. It did,
however, order Dassault to produce an unredacted copy of a portion of one email
exchange that the Court concluded arguably should have been produced. (See Order,
ECF No. 566.)
1

Case 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH ECF No. 568, PageID.18040 Filed 02/15/22 Page 2 of 3

Childress has now filed a motion for reconsideration arising out of the Court’s
relevancy review. (See Mot., ECF No. 567.) Childress says that the Court erred
when it “declined to require [Dassault] to provide an unredacted copy of document
DS # 000003811.” (Id., PageID.17348-17349.) That document is a three-page email
exchange between Dassault investigator Andrew Clarkson and a man identified in
the exchange as “Joseph Edward.” The email exchange produced by Dassault
contained three redactions: (1) a small redaction on the bottom right-hand corner of
the first page of the exchange, (2) a small redaction on the bottom right-hand corner
of the second page of the exchange, and (3) a redaction that covered the entire third
page of the exchange. Childress believes that the redacted portions of the email
exchange are relevant to his claims and defenses in this action.
They are not. The Court has reviewed the email exchange and can assure
Childress that the redacted portions of the exchange are not relevant, in any way, to
this action. The redactions are so innocuous that it is a mystery why they were made
at all. The first two redactions – the small redactions on the bottom right-hand corner
of pages one and two of the exchange – simply redact a standalone number that
seems to have been stamped on the bottom of each page (a stamp akin to a bates
stamp). The numbers have no connection to the substance of the email exchange
(which was produced in full to Childress). The third page that was redacted is

2

Case 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH ECF No. 568, PageID.18041 Filed 02/15/22 Page 3 of 3

completely blank. There is no content (substantive or otherwise) hiding behind the
redaction.
Thus, because the redacted portions of the identified email exchange are not
relevant, in any way, to this action, the redactions were appropriate (even though
unnecessary). Childress’ motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 567) is therefore
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 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 February 15, 2022, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
[phone]

3