Dassault Systemes,SA v. Childress

Filing 644

ORDER Resolving Motions in Limine. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DASSAULT SYSTEMES, SA,
Plaintiff/Counter-Claim Defendant,
Case No. 09-cv-10534
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
KEITH CHILDRESS,

Defendant/Counter-Claim Plaintiff.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER RESOLVING MOTIONS IN LIMINE
On February 28, 2024, the Court held a hearing on pre-trial motions in limine
that both parties have filed in this case. For the reasons explained on the record
during the motion hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
 Plaintiff/Counter-Claim Defendant Dassault Systemes, SA’s motion in
limine #11 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. At trial,
Defendant/Counter-Claim Plaintiff Keith Childress shall not (1) present
argument that one of the processes that Dassault abused was grand jury
proceedings and (2) offer evidence that is related solely to whether
Dassault abused grand jury proceedings. The motion is DENIED in all
other respects.

1

All of Dassault’s motions in limine are included in its filing located at docket
number 625.
1

 Dassault’s motion in limine #2 is GRANTED as follows. In support of
his abuse of process claim, Childress may argue only that acts occurring
after the filing of the Complaint in this action constitute abuses of process.
However, Childress is not precluded by this ruling from arguing that acts
occurring before the filing of the Complaint are “corroborating acts.”
Likewise, nothing in this ruling prevents Dassault from objecting to
Childress’ reliance on Dassault’s pre-Complaint conduct on the basis that
the

conduct

at

issue

is

not

properly

considered

a

“corroborating act,” or on some other basis. To the extent that there are
disputes between the parties as to whether Childress may properly rely
upon any particular pre-Complaint conduct by Dassault as a “corroborating
act,” the Court will address those disputes as they arise at trial.
 Dassault’s motion in limine #3 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART. At trial, Childress shall not argue or present evidence that
Dassault abused legal process by filing this civil litigation. The motion is
DENIED in all other respects.
 Dassault’s motion in limine #4 is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. The
parties shall submit supplemental briefs with respect to this motion in
limine as discussed on the record. In those briefs, the parties shall apply
the test described in Howe v. City of Akron, 801 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2015)

2

to the question of whether Childress should be precluded from offering
evidence at trial of damages arising out of the alleged abuses of process.
Dassault shall file its supplemental brief by no later than March 5, 2024.
Childress shall file his supplemental brief by no later than March 11, 2024.
 Dassault’s motion in limine #5 is DENIED.
 Dassault’s motion in limine #6 is GRANTED. There shall be no mention
at trial of prior opinions and/or orders of this Court or the United States
Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit unless the Court grants permission to
do so following a conference at sidebar.
 Dassault’s motion in limine #7 is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT.
 Dassault’s motion in limine #8 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART. At trial, Childress shall not be precluded from presenting any
evidence concerning the details of the FBI’s search of his business and the
seizure of his computers.

Instead, he may present some evidence

concerning those matters for the limited purpose of showing his state of
mind at the time he made statements to FBI agents. The evidence he
presents shall be limited to those aspects of the search and seizure that had
an impact on his state of mind.
 Dassault’s motion in limine #9 is GRANTED. Childress shall not offer
evidence at trial of communications between himself and Dassault (and

3

Dassault’s counsel) in connection with the administration of this civil
litigation unless the Court grants permission to do so following a
conference at sidebar.
 Dassault’s motion in limine #10 is GRANTED. Childress shall not argue
at trial that Dassault and/or Dassault representatives (and counsel) lied,
committed perjury, made false or malicious statements, improperly
withheld documents, and/or improperly redacted documents unless the
Court grants permission to do so following a conference at sidebar.
 Childress’ motion in limine #1 (ECF No. 621) is DENIED.
 Childress’ motion in limine #2 (ECF No. 622) is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART. Dassault’s expert witness(es) shall not offer
testimony at trial that Childress infringed Microsoft’s copyright(s) or
otherwise interfered with Microsoft’s intellectual property rights. The
motion is DENIED in all other respects.
 Childress’ motion in limine #3 (ECF No. 623) is DENIED.
 Childress motion in limine #4 (ECF No. 624) is DENIED. Dassault’s
counsel is directed to instruct Dassault’s witnesses not to offer testimony
about conversations and/or statements over which Dassault has asserted a
privilege.

4

Finally, at the hearing on the motions in limine, Dassault indicated that it may
seek to exclude certain witnesses Childress listed on his proposed witness list.
Dassault shall file any motion to strike those witnesses by no later than March 5,
2024. Childress may respond by no later than March 11, 2024.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: March 1, 2024
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on March 1, 2024, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
[phone]

5