1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-10628 

 (consolidated with Case No. 15-11624) 

v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. et al.

 Defendants. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF STRIKING OR 

EXPUNGING SCANDALOUS MATERIAL FROM THE RECORD AND 

FOR A FINDING OF FALSITY OF THE MATERIAL (ECF #52) 

INTRODUCTION 

 This action involves a patent infringement and trade secrets dispute between 

Plaintiff Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) and Defendants Versata Software, Inc., 

Trilogy Development Group, Inc., and Trilogy, Inc. (together, “Versata”). 

In June of this year, Ford submitted a declaration identifying certain 

potential non-party witnesses. Versata then hired the private investigation firm 

Beau Dietl & Associates, Inc. (“BDI”) to attempt to conduct interviews of these 

witnesses. BDI sent Timothy Gilbert (“Gilbert”) and Louis Zaneri (“Zaneri”) to 

the Detroit area to do just that. Ford thereafter filed a motion for a protective order 

in which it asked the Court to stop Versata and its agents from “harassing thirdparty individuals” and “undermining the discovery rules.” (See ECF #19 at 6, Pg. 

2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 64 Filed 11/10/15 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 1756
2 

ID 536.) Specifically, Ford contended that the BDI employees who were 

attempting to interview the non-party witnesses were engaging in inappropriate 

conduct, including entering uninvited into dwellings and using pressure tactics. 

(See id. at 5-6, Pg. ID 535-536.) Ford did not identify the BDI employees who 

engaged in the alleged misconduct. Versata then filed a response to Ford’s motion 

in which it vigorously contested Ford’s allegations of wrongdoing. (See ECF #23.) 

Versata supported its response with declarations from Gilbert and Zaneri denying 

that they had committed the alleged misconduct. (See ECF ## 23-3, 23-5.) 

The Court heard argument on Ford’s motion on July 2, 2015. (See Dkt.) 

The Court thereafter granted Ford’s motion in part, denied it in part, and set certain 

conditions – applicable to both sides in this action – for contact with potential 

third-party witnesses. (See Order, ECF #25.) For instance, the Court mandated 

that if Versata or Ford wished to interview a non-party witness who previously 

performed relevant work for the other side, then Versata or Ford were required to 

“send a letter to the potential interviewee stating its desire to conduct the interview 

and asking the potential interviewee if he or she agrees to be interviewed.” (Id. at 

1-2, Pg. ID 703-704.) The Court also required that specific disclosures be included 

in the letter, including that the interviewee be informed “that any interview is 

strictly voluntary and that the interviewee is free to consult with counsel prior to 

the interview and/or have counsel or other representation present during any 

2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 64 Filed 11/10/15 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 1757
3 

interview.” (See id. at 2-3, Pg. ID 704-705.) The Court in large part adopted 

these conditions from a proposal made by Versata. (See Hearing Transcript, ECF 

#26 at 28, Pg. ID 765.) 

The Court imposed these conditions because it deemed them a sensible and 

orderly way to conduct the third-party interview process. The Court did not make 

any findings concerning the truth of Ford’s allegations against BDI, and, indeed, 

did not even assume that the disputed allegations were true.1

BDI, Richard Bo Dietl (founder of BDI), Zaneri, and Gilbert (collectively, 

“Movants”) have now filed a motion for equitable relief striking Ford’s allegations 

from the record and for a finding that Ford’s allegations were false (the “Motion”). 

(See ECF #52.) Movants also ask the Court to hold an evidentiary hearing to 

inquire into the veracity of Ford’s allegations. (See id.) The Court has reviewed 

the Motion, Ford’s response (see ECF #56), and Movants’ reply (see ECF #63). 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(f)(2), the Court concludes that oral argument would not 

aid its decision on the Motion. 

As Movants acknowledge, this Court has discretion whether to undertake the 

fact-finding process they propose and grant the equitable relief they seek. (See 

Movant’s Reply Br., ECF #63 at 2, Pg. ID 1747.) The Court does not believe that 

                                                            

1

 The Court did treat as true the uncontested allegation that BDI had not provided 

advanced notice to the interviewees prior to contacting them. 

2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 64 Filed 11/10/15 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 1758
4 

proceeding with an inquiry into the veracity of Ford’s allegations is an appropriate 

exercise of that discretion. 

The Court does not share Movants’ concern that Ford’s allegations have 

meaningfully sullied their reputations. There is no indication that any potential 

client of Movants (or, indeed, any person) has treated the allegations as credible 

and/or has taken any action detrimental to Movants based upon the allegations. 

And, as noted above, the Court has not treated the allegations as true; thus the 

allegations have no imprimatur of accuracy. Moreover, Movants have included on 

the public docket a full and lengthy rebuttal to each and every allegation made 

against them. (See, e.g., ECF ## 23, 52, 63.) They have also stated their position 

on the allegations in the media (or at least Bo Dietl and counsel have). (See, e.g., 

ECF ## 56-2, 56-3, 56-4.) The Court is comfortable that Movants have created a 

sufficient public record to protect their names. Under these circumstances, the 

Court does not believe that it would be a wise or efficient use of limited judicial 

resources to hold a hearing inquiring into, or to explore at this time, the veracity of 

Ford’s allegations. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion 

(ECF #52) is DENIED. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: November 10, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 64 Filed 11/10/15 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 1759
5 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on November 10, 2015, by electronic means 

and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113

2:15-cv-10628-MFL-EAS Doc # 64 Filed 11/10/15 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 1760