UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ADIL SHAFI, 

Counter-Plaintiff/ Third-Party Plaintiff, 

v. Case No: 09-10454 

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

FREDERICK WEIDINGER AND 

BRAINTECH, INC., 

Third-Party Defendant/Counter-Defendant. 

BRAINTECH, INC.’S AND FREDERICK WEIDINGER’S JOINT 

EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DISPOSITIVE 

MOTION REPLY BRIEF IN EXCESS OF FIVE PAGES 

 Braintech, Inc., and Frederick Weidinger, by and through counsel, hereby respectfully 

move this Court, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c)(3), for leave to file a joint dispositive motion 

reply brief in excess of five pages, and state as follows: 

1. Pursuant to the Court’s September 17, 2010 Scheduling Order, on November 19, 

2010 Braintech, Inc., and Frederick Weidinger filed a joint motion for summary judgment and 

brief in support relative to Plaintiff Adil Shafi’s Second Amended Counterclaim. The Court 

allowed Defendants to submit a brief of 30 pages in length. 

2. On December 23, 2010, Plaintiff Shafi filed his Brief in Response. The Brief is 45 

pages in length. 

3. Although Braintech and Weidinger are represented by separate counsel, they have 

agreed to prepare and submit a joint reply brief so that all facts and argument can be set forth in 

one reply document for the Court’s review. 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 80 Filed 01/06/11 Page 1 of 10
2 

4. However, the 5-page limit set by Local Rule 7.1(c)(3)(B) for reply briefs does not 

provide sufficient space within which Braintech and Weidinger can adequately address the 

relevant record and the law applicable to the issues in this case. 

5. In Shafi’s Second Amended Counterclaim, he alleges seven causes of action: 

Declaratory Judgment-Employment Contract (Count I); Breach of Contract-Employment 

Contract (Count II); Fraud/Fraud in the Inducement (Count III); Violation of Section 10(b) of the 

Exchange Act (Count IV); Violation of the Michigan Uniform Securities Act, MCL 

451.810(a)(2) (Count V); Conversion (Count VI); and Unjust Enrichment (Count VII). 

6. Shafi’s Second Amended Counterclaim is 38 pages in length and contains over 

160 separate allegations. [See Docket No. 19] 

7. The documents identified and/or referenced in Shafi’s Second Amended 

Counterclaim include a Letter of Intent, Share Purchase Agreement, Lock-Up Agreement, 

Employment Agreement, Non-Competition Agreement, Letter Agreement regarding 

Indebtedness of SI and SII, a Promissory Note, and numerous emails exchanged between Shafi 

and Weidinger before and after the closing documents were executed. 

8. In their Joint Reply Brief, Braintech and Weidinger intend to be thorough yet 

succinct in their presentation to the Court and will include only those facts and arguments they 

believe are necessary for this Court to render a well-informed and considered decision. 

 WHEREFORE, Braintech and Weidinger respectfully request that this Honorable Court 

grant their Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Dispositive Motion Reply Brief in Excess of Five 

Pages and permit them to file a Joint Brief not to exceed fourteen (14) pages. 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 80 Filed 01/06/11 Page 2 of 10
3 

 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/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

 

January 6, 2011

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 80 Filed 01/06/11 Page 3 of 10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ADIL SHAFI, 

Counter-Plaintiff/ Third-Party Plaintiff, 

v. Case No: 09-10454 

Honorable Victoria A. Roberts 

FREDERICK WEIDINGER AND 

BRAINTECH, INC., 

Third-Party Defendant/Counter-Defendant. 

 

BRAINTECH, INC.’S AND FREDERICK WEIDINGER’S 

JOINT BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTION REPLY BRIEF IN EXCESS OF FIVE PAGES 

 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 80 Filed 01/06/11 Page 4 of 10
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................1 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 80 Filed 01/06/11 Page 5 of 10
ii 

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED

I. WHETHER BRAINTECH AND FREDERICK WEIDINGER SHOULD 

BE PERMITTED TO FILE A JOINT DISPOSITIVE MOTION REPLY 

BRIEF IN EXCESS OF FIVE PAGES. 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 80 Filed 01/06/11 Page 6 of 10
iii 

INDEX OF CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES

Rules Page

LR 7.1(c)(3) 1 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 80 Filed 01/06/11 Page 7 of 10
ARGUMENT

 In their Joint Motion for Summary Judgment, Braintech and Weidinger demonstrated that 

they are entitled to summary judgment in their favor on Adil Shafi’s Second Amended 

Counterclaim. The facts of this case are not necessarily complex, but they are lengthy. The 

allegations are extensive as reflected in the length of the Second Amended Counterclaim. 

 The legal issues which will be addressed in the joint reply brief relate to seven causes of 

action against multiple parties arising from a business transaction between Shafi and Braintech: 

Declaratory Judgment-Employment Contract (Count I Braintech only); Breach of ContractEmployment Contract (Count II Braintech only); Fraud/Fraud in the Inducement (Count III 

Braintech and Weidinger); Violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act (Count IV Braintech 

and Weidinger); Violation of the Michigan Uniform Securities Act, MCL 451.810(a)(2) (Count 

V Braintech and Weidinger); Conversion (Count VI Braintech and Weidinger); and Unjust 

Enrichment (Count VII Braintech and Weidinger). 

 Given the magnitude of the claims at issue and the complexity of the legal issues raised, 

the page limitation provided by the Local Rules does not provide enough space for full analysis 

and presentation of the facts and legal issues pertinent to resolution of the joint dispositive 

motion. 

 Braintech and Weidinger believe that there is ample justification to extend the page 

limitation given the number of allegations and claims alleged in the Second Amended 

Counterclaim, the desire to submit a single Reply Brief to the Court to avoid duplication, and the 

importance of providing both Braintech and Weidinger with ample space so that their respective 

positions can be presented in a single document. 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 80 Filed 01/06/11 Page 8 of 10
2 

CONCLUSION

 WHEREFORE, Braintech and Weidinger respectfully request that this Honorable Court 

grant their Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Dispositive Motion Reply Brief in Excess of Five 

Pages and permit them to file a Joint Reply Brief not to exceed fourteen (14) pages. 

 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/ 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

January 6, 2011 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 80 Filed 01/06/11 Page 9 of 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on January 6, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing paper 

(Braintech Inc’s and Weidinger’s Joint Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File a Dispositive Motion 

Reply Brief in Excess of Five Pages and Brief in Support) 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 80 Filed 01/06/11 Page 10 of 10