1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DASSAULT SYSTEMES, SA, 

 Plaintiff/Counter-Claim Defendant, 

 Case No. 09-cv-10534 

v. Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

KEITH CHILDRESS, 

 Defendant/Counter-Claim Plaintiff. 

__________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER RESOLVING MOTIONS IN LIMINE 

On February 28, 2024, the Court held a hearing on pre-trial motions in limine

that both parties have filed in this case. For the reasons explained on the record 

during the motion hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

 Plaintiff/Counter-Claim Defendant Dassault Systemes, SA’s motion in 

limine #11

 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. At trial, 

Defendant/Counter-Claim Plaintiff Keith Childress shall not (1) present 

argument that one of the processes that Dassault abused was grand jury 

proceedings and (2) offer evidence that is related solely to whether 

Dassault abused grand jury proceedings. The motion is DENIED in all 

other respects. 

1

 All of Dassault’s motions in limine are included in its filing located at docket 

number 625.

Case 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH ECF No. 644, PageID.24661 Filed 03/01/24 Page 1 of 5
2 

 Dassault’s motion in limine #2 is GRANTED as follows. In support of 

his abuse of process claim, Childress may argue only that acts occurring 

after the filing of the Complaint in this action constitute abuses of process. 

However, Childress is not precluded by this ruling from arguing that acts 

occurring before the filing of the Complaint are “corroborating acts.” 

Likewise, nothing in this ruling prevents Dassault from objecting to 

Childress’ reliance on Dassault’s pre-Complaint conduct on the basis that 

the conduct at issue is not properly considered a 

“corroborating act,” or on some other basis. To the extent that there are 

disputes between the parties as to whether Childress may properly rely 

upon any particular pre-Complaint conduct by Dassault as a “corroborating 

act,” the Court will address those disputes as they arise at trial. 

 Dassault’s motion in limine #3 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 

IN PART. At trial, Childress shall not argue or present evidence that 

Dassault abused legal process by filing this civil litigation. The motion is 

DENIED in all other respects. 

 Dassault’s motion in limine #4 is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. The 

parties shall submit supplemental briefs with respect to this motion in 

limine as discussed on the record. In those briefs, the parties shall apply 

the test described in Howe v. City of Akron, 801 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2015) 

Case 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH ECF No. 644, PageID.24662 Filed 03/01/24 Page 2 of 5
3 

to the question of whether Childress should be precluded from offering 

evidence at trial of damages arising out of the alleged abuses of process. 

Dassault shall file its supplemental brief by no later than March 5, 2024. 

Childress shall file his supplemental brief by no later than March 11, 2024. 

 Dassault’s motion in limine #5 is DENIED. 

 Dassault’s motion in limine #6 is GRANTED. There shall be no mention 

at trial of prior opinions and/or orders of this Court or the United States 

Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit unless the Court grants permission to 

do so following a conference at sidebar. 

 Dassault’s motion in limine #7 is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. 

 Dassault’s motion in limine #8 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED 

IN PART. At trial, Childress shall not be precluded from presenting any 

evidence concerning the details of the FBI’s search of his business and the 

seizure of his computers. Instead, he may present some evidence 

concerning those matters for the limited purpose of showing his state of 

mind at the time he made statements to FBI agents. The evidence he 

presents shall be limited to those aspects of the search and seizure that had 

an impact on his state of mind. 

 Dassault’s motion in limine #9 is GRANTED. Childress shall not offer 

evidence at trial of communications between himself and Dassault (and 

Case 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH ECF No. 644, PageID.24663 Filed 03/01/24 Page 3 of 5
4 

Dassault’s counsel) in connection with the administration of this civil 

litigation unless the Court grants permission to do so following a 

conference at sidebar. 

 Dassault’s motion in limine #10 is GRANTED. Childress shall not argue 

at trial that Dassault and/or Dassault representatives (and counsel) lied, 

committed perjury, made false or malicious statements, improperly 

withheld documents, and/or improperly redacted documents unless the 

Court grants permission to do so following a conference at sidebar. 

 Childress’ motion in limine #1 (ECF No. 621) is DENIED. 

 Childress’ motion in limine #2 (ECF No. 622) is GRANTED IN PART 

AND DENIED IN PART. Dassault’s expert witness(es) shall not offer 

testimony at trial that Childress infringed Microsoft’s copyright(s) or 

otherwise interfered with Microsoft’s intellectual property rights. The 

motion is DENIED in all other respects. 

 Childress’ motion in limine #3 (ECF No. 623) is DENIED. 

 Childress motion in limine #4 (ECF No. 624) is DENIED. Dassault’s 

counsel is directed to instruct Dassault’s witnesses not to offer testimony 

about conversations and/or statements over which Dassault has asserted a 

privilege. 

Case 2:09-cv-10534-MFL-MJH ECF No. 644, PageID.24664 Filed 03/01/24 Page 4 of 5
5 

Finally, at the hearing on the motions in limine, Dassault indicated that it may 

seek to exclude certain witnesses Childress listed on his proposed witness list. 

Dassault shall file any motion to strike those witnesses by no later than March 5, 

2024. Childress may respond by no later than March 11, 2024. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: March 1, 2024 

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

parties and/or counsel of record on March 1, 2024, 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. 644, PageID.24665 Filed 03/01/24 Page 5 of 5