Ford Motor Company v. Versata Software, Inc., et al

Filing 313

ORDER (1) Sustaining in Part and Overruling in Part Versata's 298 Objections to Report and Recommendation of the Special Master to Deny Versata's Motion to Compel Annual Performance Reviews and (2) Adopting in Part the 297 Report and Recommendation as the Order of the Court. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 15-cv-10628 (consolidated with Case No. 15-11624) Hon. Matthew F. Leitman VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. et al. Defendants. ________________________________________/ ORDER (1) SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART VERSATA’S OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE SPECIAL MASTER TO DENY VERSATA’S MOTION TO COMPEL ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEWS (ECF #298) AND (2) ADOPTING IN PART THE REPORT AND RECOMMENATION (ECF #297) AS THE ORDER OF THE COURT In this action, Versata Software Inc. and other related Defendants (collectively, “Versata”) allege that Ford Motor Company infringed certain patents and misappropriated certain trade secrets. During discovery, Versata asked Ford to produce annual performance reviews for a number of Ford employees. Ford objected to producing the requested documents. The Court referred the discovery dispute to attorney Lawrence D. Graham. The Court previously entered an order appointing Mr. Graham to serve as a Special Master for resolving discovery disputes (the “Appointment Order”). (See ECF #230.) Pursuant to the protocol established in the Appointment Order, Mr. Graham issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the Court deny Versata’s motion to compel Ford to produce the performance reviews (the “R&R”). (See ECF #297.) Versata has filed objections to that recommendation (see ECF #298) and Ford has filed a response (see ECF #303). On September 6, 2017, the Court held an on-the-record telephonic status conference with counsel for both Ford and Versata to discuss the R&R and Versata’s objections. For the reasons stated on the record during that status conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Versata’s objections are SUSTAINED IN PART AND OVERRULED IN PART and the R&R is ADOPTED IN PART as follows: Within fourteen (14) days of this Order, Ford shall produce to Versata the performance reviews for the employees identified on page two of Versata’s letter brief to Mr. Graham (see ECF #297-1 at Pg. ID 15035), for the years identified on that page. Ford may redact all information in the performance reviews except for: (1) the employee’s name, (2) the year of the performance review, and (3) any references to cost savings related to the following programs: ACM, MCA, and PDO-R1.1 For the time being, the Court postpones consideration of whether Ford must un-redact any references to the program PDO-R2. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Matthew F. Leitman MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: September 7, 2017                                                              1 To the extent that the performance reviews refer to cost savings from the PDO-R1 program by using a different name or acronym to describe PDO-R1, Ford shall not redact those references when producing the performance reviews to Versata. I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on September 7, 2017, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. s/Holly A. Monda Case Manager (810) 341-9764

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?