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 (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