UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DASSAULT SYSTEMES, S.A., 

Plaintiff, 

Case No. 09-10534

v. Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

KEITH CHILDRESS

d/b/a PRACTICAL CATIA TRAINING, 

Defendant. 

 / 

ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION FOR STAY

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Immediate

Stay of Proceedings Pending An Investigation into Breaches of Grand Jury Secrecy [dkt 111].

Because Defendant has filed his motion has an ex parte motion, no response is necessary. The Court

finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in Defendant’s motion such that

the decision process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Therefore, pursuant to E.D.

Mich. L.R. 7.1 (f)(2), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion be resolved on the brief submitted,

without oral argument. For the following reasons, Defendant’s motion for a stay is DENIED. 

II. BACKGROUND

In general, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant, alleging that Defendant’s conduct

at his business infringes on Plaintiff’s copyright and trademark rights. During the course of this

action, Plaintiff has issued subpoenas to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”).

The subpoenas seek information from the FBI that it obtained during a search of Defendant’s

business. After the search, a grand jury convened regarding Defendant’s conduct at his business.

2:09-cv-10534-LPZ-MJH Doc # 114 Filed 07/31/12 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 1516
1

 The Court notes that this case was filed on February 12, 2009. Defendant has maintained

throughout the pendency of this case that matters before the grand jury have been leaked in violation

of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). More than three years later, Defendant now files the instant motion

requesting a stay of the case pending resolution of the Petition. Significantly, Defendant let this

extended time pass before seeking such relief, yet labels the instant motion an “Emergency” “Ex

parte” motion. There is no basis for Defendant to consistently use such labels when filing his

pleadings. For instance, on June 20, 2012, Defendant filed a motion he labeled an “Emergency.”

As evidence of the fact such motion was not an “Emergency,” Defendant then requested from the

Court at a scheduling conference, seven additional days to file a reply to his own “Emergency”

motion. The Court advises Defendant to first consider whether such labels are appropriate when

filing future pleadings with the Court.

2

Defendant has continued to represent during the course of this action that Plaintiff is

repeatedly attempting to discover matters that are protected from disclosure as matters occurring

before the grand jury under Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e). On July 26, 2012, Defendant filed the instant ex

parte emergency motion to stay the proceedings, along with a Petition for an investigation into

purported violations of Fed. R. Crim P. 6(e)(2) (the “Petition”). The Petition requests that the Court

begin an investigation into who allegedly leaked information occurring before the grand jury to

Plaintiff. Meanwhile, Defendant’s instant motion requests that the Court stay this action during the

investigation (assuming the Court will grant the Petition).1

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under Sixth Circuit precedent, a district court has the inherent power to stay a proceeding.

Ohio Envtl. Council v. United States, Dist. Ct., S.D. Ohio, 565 F.2d 393, 396 (6th Cir. 1977). The

party requesting a stay must show that there is need to delay the case, and such delay will not cause

harm to the other parties. Id. The district court’s decision to grant or deny a stay is reviewed for

an abuse of discretion. Id.

IV. ANALYSIS

Defendant’s request to stay is denied. Defendant fails to show that there is a need to delay

2:09-cv-10534-LPZ-MJH Doc # 114 Filed 07/31/12 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 1517
3

this case. Defendant primarily relies on the fact that the Court will investigate the alleged breaches

of the grand jury. The Petition, however, has not been fully briefed, and thus, whether the Court will

order an investigation regarding the grand jury has not yet been decided. When the Petition is

considered, the Court may stay the case at that time. Defendant also raises the argument that a stay

is needed based on Defendant’s pending petition for writ of certiorari (“Writ of Cert”) before the

United States Supreme Court. As the Court recently decided, Defendant’s Writ of Cert does not

effect this Court’s jurisdiction and does not provide a basis to stay this case. Third, Defendant avers

that Plaintiff has unofficially stayed this case while the parties discuss a resolution of this case,

indicating that Plaintiff will not be harmed by a stay. Defendant’s assertion lacks merit. The parties

unofficial stay does not affect this Court’s power to ensure that this case proceeds. Furthermore,

unofficially agreeing to not file motions for several weeks is not the equivalent of staying a case for

investigation into breaches of grand jury secrecy. Such an investigation will far exceed the

unofficial stay Plaintiff has agreed to with respect to the filing of motions. As such, the Court

denies granting Defendant’s request to stay.

V. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s

Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Immediate Stay of Proceedings Pending An Investigation into

Breaches of Grand Jury Secrecy [dkt 111] is DENIED.

2:09-cv-10534-LPZ-MJH Doc # 114 Filed 07/31/12 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 1518
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 31, 2012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record

by electronic or U.S. mail on July 31, 2012.

S/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290

2:09-cv-10534-LPZ-MJH Doc # 114 Filed 07/31/12 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 1519