UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BRAINTECH, INC., 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 

v. Case No: 09-10454 

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

ADIL SHAFI, 

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/ 

Third-Party Plaintiff, 

v. 

FREDERICK WEIDINGER AND 

BRAINTECH, INC., 

Third-Party Defendant/Counter-Defendant. 

 

BRAINTECH, INC.’S AND FREDERICK WEIDINGER’S 

COMBINED JOINT RESPONSE OPPPOSING ADVENOVATION INC’S 

AMENDED MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND ADIL SHAFI’S AMENDED 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THIRD PARTY DISCOVERY1

 Braintech, Inc., and Frederick Weidinger, by and through counsel, oppose non-party 

Advenovation Inc.’s Amended Motion to Quash Subpoenas and Adil Shafi’s Amended Motion 

for Protective Order Regarding Third Party Discovery (collectively “Motions”) because, as set 

forth more specifically in the attached Brief in Opposition, the discovery sought from 

Advenovation Inc. and Aptura Machine Vision Solutions is relevant to counts in Shafi’s second 

amended counterclaim, two of which (conversion and unjust enrichment) are not mentioned 

anywhere in Advenovation’s/Shafi’s Motions, and is relevant to the ten million dollars in 

 

1

 The facts and legal issues related to the Motions are so intertwined that it seemed most efficient 

to respond in a combined brief. If the Court prefers separate response briefs, Braintech and 

Weidinger will re-submit separate briefs. 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 67 Filed 11/22/10 Page 1 of 16
2 

damages that Shafi seeks in this case, which are, likewise, not mentioned in the Motion to Quash. 

Shafi’s unsupported allegations that the information is proprietary or constitutes trade secrets can 

be adequately addressed with the entry of a protective order limiting use of the information to 

this litigation. 

 WHEREFORE, Braintech, Inc., and Frederick Weidinger respectfully request that this 

Honorable Court a) deny non-party Advenovation’s Amended Motion to Quash Subpoenas, b) 

deny Adil Shafi’s Amended Motion for Protective Order Regarding Third Party Discovery, and 

c) award Braintech and Weidinger their attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of 

Advenovation’s/Shafi’s Motions. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 

NEMETH BURWELL, P.C. 

By: s/Susan D. Koval 

 Anne Widlak (P35763) 

 Susan D. Koval (P59297) 

Attorneys for Braintech, Inc. 

 200 Talon Centre Drive, Suite 200 

 Detroit, Michigan 48207 

 (313) 567-5921 

 awidlak@nemethburwell.com 

 skoval@nemethburwell.com 

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

By: s/with consent of Geoffrey J. Greeves

 Geoffrey J. Greeves 

 Attorney for Frederick Weidinger 

 2300 N Street, N.W. 

 Washington, DC 20037-1122 

 (202) 663-9228 

 geoffrey.greeves@pillsburylaw.com 

November 22, 2010

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 67 Filed 11/22/10 Page 2 of 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BRAINTECH, INC., 

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 

v. Case No: 09-10454 

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

ADIL SHAFI, 

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/ 

Third-Party Plaintiff, 

v. 

FREDERICK WEIDINGER AND 

BRAINTECH, INC., 

Third-Party Defendant/Counter-Defendant. 

 

BRAINTECH, INC.’S AND FREDERICK WEIDINGER’S 

COMBINED JOINT BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO ADVENOVATION INC’S 

AMENDED MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS AND ADIL SHAFI’S AMENDED 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THIRD PARTY DISCOVERY

 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 67 Filed 11/22/10 Page 3 of 16
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED ............................................................................ ii 

INDEX OF CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES ............................................................................ iii 

STATEMENT OF FACTS ..............................................................................................................1 

STANDARD OF REVIEW .............................................................................................................3 

ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................4 

I. THE INFORMATION REQUESTED IN THE SUBPOENAS IS 

RELEVANT TO SHAFI’S CLAIMS AND ALLEGED DAMAGES ....................5 

II. SHAFI AND ADVENOVATION HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED THAT 

THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE SUBPOENAS IS PROTCETD

BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. ...............................................................6 

III. SHAFI AND ADVENOVATION HAVE NO STANDING TO 

CHALLENGE THE SUBPOENA TO APTURA AND THEY HAVE 

NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE 

SUBPOENAS IS CONFIDENTIAL TRADE SECRETS OR 

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION .........................................................................7 

IV. SHAFI AND ADVENOVATION HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED THAT 

THE SUBPOENAS EXPOSE THEM TO UNDUE BURDEN AND 

EXPENSE ................................................................................................................8 

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................9 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 67 Filed 11/22/10 Page 4 of 16
ii 

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED

I. WHETHER ADVENOVATION OR SHAFI HAS MET THEIR 

BURDEN TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE WHY BRAINTECH AND 

WEIDINGER SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM DISCOVERING 

INFORMATION REGARDING SHAFI’S CLAIMS FOR 

CONVERSION AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND SHAFI’S 

ALLEGED DAMAGES FOR CONVERSION, LOST GOING 

CONCERN, LOST OPPORTUNITY, DAMAGE TO REPUTATION, 

AND LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL DEBT. 

II. WHETHER INFORMATION REGARDING SHAFI’S CONTINUED 

USE OF PROPERTY HE CLAIMS WAS STOLEN FROM HIM IS 

RELEVANT TO BRAINTECH AND WEIDINGER’S DEFENSE OF 

SHAFI’S FRAUD, CONVERSION AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT 

CLAIMS. 

III. WHETHER SHAFI AND ADVENOVATION HAVE ESTABLISHED 

THAT THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE SUBPOENAS IS 

PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE WHERE THEY 

HAVE FAILED TO DESCRIBE THE DOCUMENTS IN A MANNER 

SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE BRAINTECH AND WEIDINGER TO 

CONTEST THE ASSERTED PRIVILEGE. 

IV. WHETHER SHAFI AND ADVENOVATION HAVE STANDING TO 

CHALLENGE THE APTURA SUBPOENA, AND IF SO, WHETHER 

THEY HAVE MET THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW THAT 

THE INFORMATION IS PROPRIETARY OR A TRADE SECRET OR

THAT SUBSTANTIAL HARM WILL RESULT THAT CANNOT BE 

CONTROLLED WITH A PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING ITS USE

TO THIS ITIGATION. 

V. WHETHER ADVENOVATION OR SHAFI HAVE MET THEIR 

BURDEN TO SHOW UNDUE BURDEN AND EXPENSE WHERE 

THEY MAKE ONLY A GENERIC ALLEGATION OF UNDUE 

BURDEN WHICH IS UNSUPPORTED BY AFFIDAVIT OR 

OTHERWISE AND THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES THAT 

PRODUCTION OF THE INFORMATION IS NOT UNDULY 

BURDENSOME. 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 67 Filed 11/22/10 Page 5 of 16
iii 

INDEX OF CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES

Cases Page

Avirgan v. Hull, 118 F.R.D. 252, 254 (D.D.C.1987) .................................................................... 3 

City of Ecorse v. U.S. Steel, 2007 WL 4239263 (E.D.Mich. Dec. 3, 2007) ................................. 7 

Federal Election Com'n v. GOPAC, Inc., 897 F.Supp. 615, 617 (D.D.C. 1995) ......................... 3 

Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3rd Cir. 1995) .......................................... 4 

Gulf Oil v. Bernard, 452 U.S. 89, 102 n. 16, 101 S.Ct. 2193 (1981) ........................................... 3 

Hoxie v Livingston County, 2010 WL 822401 (E.D.Mich. March 4, 2010) ................................. 9 

Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985 (3d Cir.1982) .................................................................. 4 

Landry v. Air Line Pilots Association, 901 F.2d 404, 435 (5th Cir. 1990) ................................... 4 

Leibel v. General Motors Corp., 250 Mich.App. 229, 236, 646 N.W.2d 179, 183 (2002) .......... 6 

Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11th Cir 1985) ............................. 4 

Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir.1994) ............................................. 4 

Ross v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 606 (6th Cir.2005) ......................................................... 7 

Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holdings, Inc., No. 1:06 CV 2622, 2007 WL 2344750, *3 

 (N.D.Ohio Aug.15, 2007) ................................................................................................... 7 

White Mule Co. v. ATC Leasing Co., LLC, 2008 WL 2680273 (N.D. Ohio June 25, 2008) ........ 7 

Court Rules

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) and(c) ........................................................................................................3,4 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d) ..........................................................................................................................7 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(3)(B)(i) .............................................................................................................7 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 67 Filed 11/22/10 Page 6 of 16
STATEMENT OF FACTS

 In addition to claims for fraud, securities fraud, and breach of employment contract, 

Counter-Plaintiff Adil Shafi’s second amended counterclaim includes claims for conversion and 

unjust enrichment. In these claims, Adil Shafi (“Shafi”) contends that Braintech and Frederick 

Weidinger stole corporate property from him, converted such property to their own use, and were 

unjustly enriched.2 For some reason, Shafi failed to mention these claims in Advenovation Inc.’s 

Amended Motion to Quash Subpoenas and Adil Shafi’s Amended Motion for Protective Order 

Regarding Third Party Discovery (collectively “Motions”). Shafi also neglected to mention that 

he seeks in excess of ten million dollars in damages in this case, including: 

1. Lost going concern value of Shafi Inc. -- $900,000 

2. Breach of employment agreement -- $700,000 

3. Personal liability for Shafi debt approx $250,000 

4. Lost opportunity cost and damage to reputation as a result of Braintech’s 

actions ($500,000) (Ex.A; Shafi Initial Disclosures re damages). 

5. Conversion claim: treble damages (approximately $9,000,000) (Ex.B; Shafi 

answer to Interrogatory No. 18). 

In Counts VI and VII of the second amended counterclaim, Shafi alleges as follows: 

As part of an elaborate and complicated scheme to commit theft of corporate 

property, Weidinger and Braintech made a series of fraudulent misrepresentations 

and omissions to state material facts in order to induce Shafi to sell his interests in 

SI and SII. (2nd Amd Counterclaim, ¶155, 161) (emphasis added) 

 Shafi further alleges that, in reliance upon the fraudulent misrepresentations and 

omissions, he turned over his interests in SI and SII to Weidinger and Braintech and that 

 

2 In August 2008, in a stock for stock transaction, Braintech, Inc. acquired 100% of the 

outstanding shares of SHAFI, Inc. (“SI”) and 80% of the shares of SHAFI Innovation, Inc. 

(“SII”) from Shafi pursuant to a Share Purchase Agreement (“SPA”). In connection with the 

execution of the SPA, Braintech entered into a three year employment agreement with Shafi, 

pursuant to which Shafi was to serve as Braintech’s Chief Operating Officer (“COO”). 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 67 Filed 11/22/10 Page 7 of 16
2 

Weidinger and Braintech unlawfully converted such corporate property to their own use. (2nd 

Amd Counterclaim, ¶¶156-158,162). Shafi alleges that Weidinger and Braintech retained and 

benefited from the corporate assets of SI and SII, and were unjustly enriched at Shafi’s expense. 

 During his deposition, Adil Shafi admitted that David Dechow, President of Aptura 

Machine Vision Solutions (“Aptura”), has a copy of Reliabot source code,3 the property Shafi 

sold to Braintech and now claims was stolen from him. (Ex.C; Shafi at 418-424). Shafi also 

testified that Mr. Dechow created the Reliabot source code and created the source code Shafi is 

currently using in his new business Advenovation. (Ex.C; Shafi at 390). Shafi further testified 

that he has taken no steps to investigate whether Mr. Dechow used Shafi I or Braintech's source 

code to develop the Advenovation source code. (Ex.C; Shafi at 421-425). Finally, Shafi testified 

that, as President of Advenovation, he collaborates with Mr. Dechow and subcontracts with him 

to provide the software his Advenovation customers need. (Ex.C; Shafi at 413-417). 

One of the arguments raised by Shafi/Advenovation is that because Braintech has no 

funds by which to pay a judgment in this case (if one is obtained), Braintech has no right to 

defend against the claims made by Shafi and the damages he seeks.4

 As the Court may recall 

from an earlier telephone conference with the parties, Shafi simply wants the Court to enter a 

 

3 At all relevant times, Shafi represented that his companies possessed a fully functional, marketrevenue-ready product known as Reliabot. Within weeks after the deal was finalized, Braintech 

was permitted to inspect and evaluate the Reliabot technology for the first time. Braintech 

learned that the SI “flagship” product, Reliabot, was not revenue ready as represented. It is 

undisputed in this case that Reliabot did not generate any revenue for Shafi I or Braintech after 

the August 2008 closing. 

4

 In February 2009, Braintech brought suit to rescind the agreements that it entered into with 

Shafi, SI and SII based on numerous material false and fraudulent misrepresentations that Shafi 

made to Braintech to induce the transaction. Braintech’s Complaint was dismissed after it ceased 

operating and after its assets were put up for auction. 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 67 Filed 11/22/10 Page 8 of 16
3 

judgment against Braintech without hearing any evidence or having a trial. Although Shafi 

suggests that it is a “pointless waste of time and resources to devote subpoenas and discovery” to 

these issues, it seems the greater waste of time and resources is the continuation of a lawsuit 

against an entity which has no funds to pay a judgment.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide a very liberal standard for discovery. 

Provided the information sought is not privileged or otherwise limited by court order, it need 

only be “relevant to any party's claim or defense” or “reasonably calculated to lead to the 

discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). 

In order to obtain a protective order denying discovery to Braintech and Weidinger, Shafi 

must demonstrate good cause. See generally, 8 Wright, Miller & Marcus, Federal Practice and 

Procedure: Civil 2d§ 2035. The burden of showing good cause rests with the party requesting the 

protective order. The party must make a particular request and a specific demonstration of facts 

in support of the request as opposed to conclusory or speculative statements about the need for a 

protective order and the harm which would be suffered without one. Gulf Oil v. Bernard, 452 

U.S. 89, 102 n. 16, 101 S.Ct. 2193 (1981). 

To prevail, Plaintiff must “articulate specific facts showing ‘clearly defined and serious 

injury’ resulting from the discovery sought ..., and cannot rely on merely conclusory statements.” 

Avirgan v. Hull, 118 F.R.D. 252, 254 (D.D.C.1987) (citations omitted); Federal Election Com'n 

v. GOPAC, Inc., 897 F.Supp. 615, 617 (D.D.C. 1995). Good cause exists when justice requires 

the protection of “a party or person from any annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 67 Filed 11/22/10 Page 9 of 16
4 

burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c); Landry v. Air Line Pilots Association, 901 F.2d 404, 

435 (5th Cir. 1990). 

Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning 

are insufficient to show good cause. Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3rd 

Cir. 1995); Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786 (3d Cir.1994). Objections which

serve as the basis of a motion for protective order must be “plain enough and specific enough so 

that the court can understand in what way the [discovery requests] are alleged to be 

objectionable.” Panola Land Buyers Ass'n v. Shuman, 762 F.2d 1550, 1559 (11th Cir 1985) 

(citations omitted). A “party resisting discovery ‘must show specifically how ... each 

interrogatory is not relevant or how each question is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive....’”

Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985 (3d Cir.1982) (quoting Roesberg v. Johns-Manville Corp., 

85 F.R.D. 292, 296-97 (E.D. Pa.1980)). 

ARGUMENT

 Shafi and Advenovation have not met their burden to show good cause why Braintech 

and Weidinger should be precluded from discovering information regarding the property Shafi 

claims was stolen from him (which is presently in the possession of his only Advenovation 

collaborator) and the alleged damages he claims arises from the theft. Shafi and Advenovation 

have not set forth specific facts in support of the request but have offered only self-serving, 

conclusory and speculative statements about trade secrets and proprietary information. Most 

notably, Shafi has misled the Court into believing his claims are limited to only fraud and breach 

of employment contract and that his alleged damages are limited to whether Braintech had good 

cause to terminate the employment agreement. 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 67 Filed 11/22/10 Page 10 of 16
5 

I. THE INFORMATION REQUESTED IN THE SUBPOENAS IS 

RELEVANT TO SHAFI’S CLAIMS AND ALLEGED DAMAGES. 

 In Shafi’s Motion for Protective Order, he alleges that the information requested in the 

subpoenas is not relevant to his claims because his involvement with Advenovation and 

collaboration with Mr. Dechow occurred following his termination from Braintech. In support of 

this statement, Shafi relies on his own self-serving deposition testimony in this case. Surely, 

Braintech and Weidinger have the right to inspect documents which support or refute Shafi’s 

testimony. For this reason alone, the Motions should be denied. 

 However, the information sought by the subpoenas is also relevant for a variety of other 

reasons. Whether Adil Shafi is still using and benefitting from the corporate property he claims 

was stolen from him is undoubtedly relevant in this case. Whether Aptura or David Dechow 

possess the Reliabot software that Shafi alleges was stolen from him is relevant in this case. 

Whether Aptura/Dechow modified Reliabot software so that Shafi could sell it under his new 

moniker Advenovation is relevant in this case. Whether Adil Shafi is presently continuing the 

business of Shafi I and Shafi II under a new moniker (Advenovation) is relevant to his 

conversion claim and alleged damages for lost going concern value and lost opportunity. 

Whether Adil Shafi is continuing the same business he sold to Braintech is relevant to his claim 

that his reputation was damaged as a result of the alleged wrongdoing by Braintech and 

Weidinger. Whether Adil Shafi is receiving payment from David Dechow for revenue owed to 

Braintech is relevant to Shafi’s fraud claims in this case. Whether Adil Shafi, either personally, 

or as President of Advenovation, is receiving compensation from Aptura/Dechow to sell Aptura 

products is relevant to his lost opportunity claim. Whether Adil Shafi has paid monies in his 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 67 Filed 11/22/10 Page 11 of 16
6 

individual capacity, or as President of Advenovation, for “personal liability for Shafi debt” is 

relevant to his claim for damages for excess debt he claims Braintech was required to pay. 

II. SHAFI AND ADVENOVATION HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED 

THAT THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE SUBPOENAS IS 

PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. 

Shafi claims that the first two items requested in the subpoenas to Advenovation are 

protected by the attorney-client privilege: 

1. Communications between Paul Tomasi and Adil Shafi regarding the 

formation of Advenovation, Inc. 

2. Documents transferring Advenovation, Inc., from Paul Tomasi to Adil Shafi. 

 During Shafi’s deposition, he testified that he instructed Paul Tomasi to form 

Advenovation possibly before December of 2008. (Ex. C; Shafi at 10-14). Clearly, Shafi gave 

the direction to his attorney. He did not say he sought legal advice from Mr. Tomasi.5 Moreover, 

during his deposition, Shafi did not assert attorney-client privilege regarding the instructions he 

gave about the formation of Advenovation. Finally, it is unclear how the transfer documents 

could possibly be protected by privilege. 

 Rule 45 provides in part that “[w]hen information subject to a subpoena is withheld on a 

claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation materials, the claim shall be 

made expressly and shall be supported by a description of the nature of the documents, 

communications, or things not produced that is sufficient to enable the demanding party to 

 

5

 “The scope of the attorney-client privilege is narrow, attaching only to confidential 

communications by the client to his advisor that are made for the purpose of obtaining legal 

advice.” Leibel v. General Motors Corp., 250 Mich.App. 229, 236, 646 N.W.2d 179, 183 (2002) 

(citing Reed Dairy Farm v. Consumers Power Co., 227 Mich.App. 614, 618-619, 576 N.W.2d 

709 (1998)). 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 67 Filed 11/22/10 Page 12 of 16
7 

contest the claim.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(d) (2)(A). The party asserting the privilege bears the burden 

of establishing the privilege exists. Ross v. City of Memphis, 423 F.3d 596, 606 (6th Cir.2005). A 

party's mere assertion that certain information is privileged is insufficient to meet this burden. 

Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holdings, Inc., No. 1:06 CV 2622, 2007 WL 2344750, *3 (N.D.Ohio 

Aug.15, 2007) (Ex.D). 

 Accordingly, Shafi’s blanket assertion of privilege regarding the discovery sought is 

insufficient to meet his burden of proving privilege. Therefore, Shafi has failed to articulate a 

basis of privilege such that the Court must quash the subpoena in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 

45(c)(3)(A)(iii). Alternatively, Braintech and Weidinger request that the Court require 

Shafi/Advenovation to submit a privilege log identifying the alleged privileged information. 

III. SHAFI AND ADVENOVATION HAVE NO STANDING TO 

CHALLENGE THE SUBPOENA TO APTURA AND THEY HAVE 

NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY 

THE SUBPOENAS IS CONFIDENTIAL TRADE SECRETS OR 

PROPRIETARY INFORMATION. 

 

The subpoenas also should not be quashed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(c)(3)(B)(i). “In the 

absence of a claim of privilege, proprietary interest, or personal interest, a party has no standing 

to quash a subpoena directed at a non-party.” White Mule Co. v. ATC Leasing Co., LLC, 2008 

WL 2680273 (N.D. Ohio June 25, 2008)(Ex.E) (citing Donahoo v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 

211 F.R.D. 303, 306 (N.D.Ohio 2002) (“the party to whom the subpoena is directed is the only 

party with standing to oppose it”) and City of Ecorse v. U.S. Steel, 2007 WL 4239263 

(E.D.Mich. Dec. 3, 2007)(Ex.F) (analyzing a motion to quash in the context of Fed.R.Civ.P. 

45(c)(3)). Here, Shafi makes only general allegations that the information sought requires the 

disclosure of trade secret and proprietary information. The allegations are neither specific nor 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 67 Filed 11/22/10 Page 13 of 16
8 

substantiated. Therefore, neither Shafi nor Advenovation has shown that they have standing to 

move to quash the subpoena issued to Aptura as trade secret or proprietary information because 

Shafi has failed to describe how the information is confidential and why or in what way he 

would suffer injury. 

Even if Shafi and Advenovation had standing, Shafi has not produced any evidence that 

the information is confidential and proprietary and has not offered any confidentiality 

agreements between Aptura and Advenovation. In fact, Shafi testified that he has not sought any 

kind of intellectual property protection for the product that his new company is selling. (Ex.C; 

Shafi at 390). Likewise, Mr. Dechow did not raise any issue about trade secrets or proprietary 

information when he discussed the subpoenas with counsel for Braintech on November 1, 2010. 

(Ex.G; Dechow email). 

 Nevertheless, to alleviate Shafi's concerns over the alleged trade secret or proprietary 

information, Braintech and Weidinger will agree to a stipulated protective order which provides 

that the information will be used for purposes of this litigation only. 

IV. SHAFI AND ADVENOVATION HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED 

THAT THE SUBPOENAS EXPOSE THEM TO UNDUE BURDEN 

AND EXPENSE. 

 In Advenovation’s Amended Motion to Quash, it makes passing reference to the notion 

that the subpoenas subject it to undue burden and expense. Rule 26(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure states, “[t]he court may for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or 

person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Where a party 

makes only generic allegations of undue burden and expense which are unsupported by affidavit 

or otherwise, the party has failed to show good cause for the Court to issue a protective order. 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 67 Filed 11/22/10 Page 14 of 16
9 

Hoxie v Livingston County, 2010 WL 822401 (E.D.Mich. March 4, 2010) (Ex. H) 

 Here, Shafi has offered nothing more than generic allegations of undue burden and 

expense. Moreover, according to Mr. Dechow, “researching, collecting and reproducing the 

requested information” will require Aptura to expend only one hour of management time and 3 

hours of administrative and accounting time. (Ex.G; Dechow email). As noted by Mr. Dechow, 

Aptura can readily produce the requested information without undue burden and expense, just as 

Advenovation can. 

CONCLUSION

 Accordingly, Braintech, Inc., and Frederick Weidinger respectfully request that this 

Honorable Court a) deny non-party Advenovation’s Amended Motion to Quash Subpoenas, b) 

deny Adil Shafi’s Amended Motion for Protective Order Regarding Third Party Discovery, and 

c) award Braintech and Weidinger their attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of 

Advenovation’s/Shafi’s Motions. 

Respectfully submitted, 

NEMETH BURWELL, P.C. 

By: s/Susan D. Koval 

 Anne Widlak (P35763) 

 Susan D. Koval (P59297) 

 Attorneys for Braintech, Inc. 

 200 Talon Centre Drive, Suite 200 

 Detroit, Michigan 48207 

 (313) 567-5921 

 awidlak@nemethburwell.com 

 skoval@nemethburwell.com 

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN 

LLP 

By: s/with consent of Geoffrey J. Greeves 

 Geoffrey J. Greeves 

 Attorney for Frederick Weidinger 

 2300 N Street, N.W. 

 Washington, DC 20037-1122 

 (202) 663-9228 

 geoffrey.greeves@pillsburylaw.com 

 

November 22, 2010 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 67 Filed 11/22/10 Page 15 of 16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on November 22, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing paper 

(Braintech and Weidinger’s Joint Combined Response and Brief in Opposition to Advenovation 

Inc.’s Amended Motion to Quash Subpoenas and Adil Shafi’s Amended Motion for Protective 

Order Regarding Third Party Discovery) with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, 

which will send notification of such filing and service of such documents to all parties via their 

counsel of record at the e-mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing receipt. 

s/Susan D. Koval

Susan D. Koval (P59297) 

NEMETH BURWELL, PC 

Attorney for Braintech, Inc. 

200 Talon Centre Drive, Suite 200 

Detroit, Michigan 48207 

(313) 567-5921 

skoval@nemethburwell.com 

P59297 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 67 Filed 11/22/10 Page 16 of 16