{00005526;v1 }

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRAINTECH, INC., a Nevada corporation,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v.

ADIL SHAFI, an individual,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/

Third-Party Plaintiff,

v.

FREDERICK WEIDINGER, an individual,

Third-Party Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 09-10454

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

DEFENDANT ADIL SHAFI’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

IN EXCESS OF TWENTY PAGES

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 74 Filed 12/22/10 Page 1 of 10
{00005526;v1 } 1

Defendant Adil Shafi (“Shafi”), by and through his attorneys, Berry Moorman 

P.C., moves, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c)(3)(A), for leave to file a brief in excess of 

twenty pages in response to Braintech Inc. and Frederick Weidinger’s Joint Motion for 

Summary Judgment, and states as follows:

1. Pursuant to the Court’s December 8, 2010 email to the parties, Defendant 

Adil Shafi will be filing a brief in response to Braintech Inc. and Frederick Weidinger’s 

Joint Motion for Summary Judgment by December 23, 2010.

2. Braintech Inc. and Frederick Weidinger’s Joint Motion for Summary 

Judgment and Brief in Support is 40 pages long and includes 38 exhibits. (See Docket 

66).

3. The 20-page limit for briefs set by Local Rule 7.1(c)(3)(A) does not provide 

sufficient space within which Shafi can adequately address the relevant record and law 

applicable to the issues in this case.

WHEREFORE, Defendant Shafi respectfully requests that this Court grant this 

motion and permit him to file a response exceeding the limit of 20 pages.

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 74 Filed 12/22/10 Page 2 of 10
{00005526;v1 } 2

Respectfully submitted,

BERRY MOORMAN P.C.

By: s/James P. Murphy

James P. Murphy (P36728)

Attorneys for Defendant

535 Griswold, Suite 1900

Detroit, Michigan 48226

(313) 496-1200

murph@berrymoorman.com

Dated: December 22, 2010

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 74 Filed 12/22/10 Page 3 of 10
{00005526;v1 }

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRAINTECH, INC., a Nevada corporation,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v.

ADIL SHAFI, an individual,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/

Third-Party Plaintiff,

v.

FREDERICK WEIDINGER, an individual,

Third-Party Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 09-10454

Hon. Victoria A. Roberts

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ADIL SHAFI’S EX PARTE 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO JOINT MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN EXCESS OF TWENTY PAGES

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 74 Filed 12/22/10 Page 4 of 10
{00005526;v1 } i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

CONCLUSION...............................................................................................1

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 74 Filed 12/22/10 Page 5 of 10
{00005526;v1 } ii

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED

I. WHETHER DEFENDANT SHAFI SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO 

FILE A BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO BRAINTECH INC. AND 

FREDERICK WEIDINGER’S JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT IN EXCESS OF TWENTY PAGES.

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 74 Filed 12/22/10 Page 6 of 10
{00005526;v1 } iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Rules Page

Local Rule 7.1(c)(3)(A) .................................................................................1

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 74 Filed 12/22/10 Page 7 of 10
{00005526;v1 } 1

I. ARGUMENT

In his response to Braintech Inc. and Frederick Weidinger’s Joint Motion for 

Summary Judgment, Shafi will be responding to the joint motion to dismiss Shafi’s 

claims for breach of the employment contract, fraud and fraud in the inducement, 

securities fraud, violation of the Michigan Uniform Securities Act, conversion and unjust 

enrichment. As this Court knows, the joint motion itself, exceeds 40 pages.

There are thousands of pages of deposition transcripts, thousands of pages of email, a very long and complicated Share Purchase Agreement, hundreds of pages of 

publicly filed financial statements and records by Braintech, and business records of 

Braintech and Shafi Inc., all of which bear on issues raised in the joint motion to dismiss

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

issues raised by the joint motion, the 20-page limit provided by the Local Rules does not 

provide enough space for a full analysis and presentation of the legal and factual issues 

pertinent to resolution of the Joint Motion for Summary Judgment. E.D. Mich LR

7.1(c)(3)(A) provides that “a party seeking to file a longer brief [than 20 pages] may 

apply ex parte to the Court in writing setting forth the reasons.”

II. CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Defendant Shafi respectfully requests that this Court grant his Ex 

Parte Motion For Leave To File Brief In Response To Joint Motion For Summary 

Judgment In Excess of Twenty Page limit.

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 74 Filed 12/22/10 Page 8 of 10
{00005526;v1 } 2

Respectfully submitted,

BERRY MOORMAN P.C.

By: s/James P. Murphy

James P. Murphy (P36728)

Attorneys for Defendant

535 Griswold, Suite 1900

Detroit, Michigan 48226

(313) 496-1200

murph@berrymoorman.com

Dated: December 22, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

STATE OF MICHIGAN )

)ss

COUNTY OF WAYNE )

I hereby certify that on the 22nd day of December, 2010, a copy of the foregoing 

Defendant Adil Shafi’s Ex Parte Motion For Leave To File Brief In Response To Joint 

Motion For Summary Judgment In Excess of Twenty Pages and Memorandum of Law 

in Support was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by 

operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through 

the Court’s system. 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 74 Filed 12/22/10 Page 9 of 10
{00005526;v1 } 3

Respectfully submitted,

BERRY MOORMAN P.C.

By: s/James P. Murphy

James P. Murphy (P36728)

Attorneys for Defendant

535 Griswold, Suite 1900

Detroit, Michigan 48226

(313) 496-1200

murph@berrymoorman.com

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 74 Filed 12/22/10 Page 10 of 10