1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DASSAULT SYSTEMES, SA 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 09-cv-10534 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

KEITH CHILDRESS, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER (1) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PRODUCE DOCUMENT TO 

DEFENDANT, (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO FILE A 

REPLY BRIEF (ECF No. 562), AND (3) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 559) 

This civil action between Plaintiff Dassault Systemes, SA and Defendant 

Keith Childress is more than ten years old. The parties took discovery for a lengthy 

period of time, tried certain claims before a jury, and completed an appeal to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In 2020, that court remanded 

the action to this Court for further proceedings. (See Sixth Cir. Order, ECF No. 536.) 

On April 19, 2021, Childress filed a motion to re-open discovery. (See Mot., 

ECF No. 550.) Childress requested, among other things, that Dassault “produce all 

documents that Dassault withheld and/or redacted based on relevancy and/or 

privilege (work product and/or attorney-client) and all other communications 

between Dassault agents or between Dassault agents and Government authorities 

Case 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH ECF No. 566, PageID.17344 Filed 01/28/22 Page 1 of 4
2 

regarding Childress or his School.” (Id., PageID.16581.) On October 26, 2021, the 

Court granted Childress’ motion in part and denied the motion in part. (See Order, 

ECF No. 557.) The Court granted the motion to the extent that it asked the Court to 

undertake an in camera review of all of the documents that Dassault redacted for 

relevancy. (See id.) The Court declined to order Dassault to produce documents that 

it had withheld and/or redacted on the basis of the privilege and denied the motion 

in all other respects. 

While the Court was undertaking its relevancy review, Childress filed a 

motion for reconsideration of the Court’s October 26 ruling. (See Mot. for 

Reconsideration, ECF No. 559.) In that motion, Childress “ask[ed] the Court to 

modify [the October 26 order] in one respect.” (Id., PageID.17201.) Childress asked 

the Court to ‘review documents withheld and redacted for ‘privilege’ (i.e., attorney 

client and work product).” (Id.) Childress insisted that the Court should undertake 

that review because Dassault “inappropriately redacted and withheld critical 

evidence under the guise of work product.” (Id., PageID.17206.) Childress did not 

ask the Court to reconsider any other portion of the October 26 order.1

 (See id.) 

 

1

 Childress has also filed a motion to file a reply brief in further support of his motion 

for reconsideration. (See Mot. to File Reply Br., ECF No. 562.) That motion is 

GRANTED. 

Case 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH ECF No. 566, PageID.17345 Filed 01/28/22 Page 2 of 4
3 

The Court held an on-the-record status conference in this action on January 

28, 2022, to (1) share with the parties the results of its in camera review of the 

documents Dassault had redacted for relevancy and (2) issue a ruling on Childress’ 

motion for reconsideration. 

The Court began with its in camera review of Dassault’s relevancy redactions. 

As the Court explained to the parties, it concluded that nearly all of Dassault’s 

redactions were appropriate. It did, however, have a question on one portion of an 

email exchange that Dassault had redacted. The entire email exchange containing 

the portion in question is found at Bates Numbers DS-00004056 – DS-00004060. 

Per the agreement of the parties on the record, the Court conducted an in camera

discussion with only counsel for Dassault so that it could better understand the 

context of the email exchange at issue. That discussion took place on a sealed record 

that will not be made available to Childress. Following that discussion, the Court 

reconvened with counsel for both parties and ordered that Dassault produce an 

unredacted copy of the portion of the identified email exchange that is found at Bates 

Number DS-00004057. The Court also provided Dassault the alternative option of 

producing an unredacted copy of the entire email exchange at issue to Childress. 

Dassault shall produce the underacted email exchange to Childress by no later than 

February 9, 2022. 

Case 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH ECF No. 566, PageID.17346 Filed 01/28/22 Page 3 of 4
4 

Once Childress receives the unredacted email exchange from Dassault, he 

shall review the exchange and determine if he believes any follow-up discovery is 

necessary. If he does wish to take any follow-up discovery, he shall describe that 

discovery in writing to Dassault. The parties shall then conduct a substantive meet 

and confer to determine if they can come to an agreement regarding any follow-up 

discovery. Once the parties complete this meet and confer process, they shall inform 

the Court. The Court will then schedule a status conference. During that conference, 

the Court will either (1) set a schedule for the agreed-upon follow-up discovery, or 

(2) resolve any disputes regarding that discovery. 

Finally, during the January 28 status conference, the Court issued its ruling on 

Childress’ motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 559.) For the reasons explained on 

the record, that motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

       s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: January 28, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on January 28, 2022, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Ryan 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5126 

Case 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH ECF No. 566, PageID.17347 Filed 01/28/22 Page 4 of 4