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 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF FREDERICK WEIDINGER’S 

FED.R.CIV.P. 37(b) MOTION TO COMPEL COUNTER-PLAINTIFF 

ADIL SHAFI TO PRODUCE CERTAIN SOURCE CODE 

REQUIRED BY THE COURT’S DECEMBER 17, 2010 ORDER 

 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 96 Filed 03/22/11 Page 1 of 9
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES ............................................................................. ii 

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 

BRAINTECH AND WEIDINGER CONSISTENTLY PURSUED INFORMATION 

REGARDING SHAFI’S ADVENOVATION ACTIVITIES AND HIS USE OF RELIABOT 

SOURCE CODE BUT SHAFI STONEWALLED THE INQUIRIES ............................................1 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MORGAN ORDERED SHAFI TO PRODUCE THE SOURCE 

CODE IN A FORENSIC ENVIRONMENT AND TO SUPPLEMENT HIS INITIAL 

DISCLOSURES REGARDING DAMAGES .................................................................................3 

BRAINTECH PROMPTLY ORDERED THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE DECEMBER 17, 2010 

HEARING, BUT THE COURT REPORTER DID NOT COMPLETE THE TRANSCRIPT 

UNTIL FEBRUARY 14, 2011 ........................................................................................................3 

SHAFI DELAYED AMENDING HIS INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND RENEGED ON 

REPRESENTATIONS HIS COUNSEL MADE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE MORGAN ...........3 

SHAFI ADMITTED HE DOES NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO EVALUATE SOURCE 

CODE. ..............................................................................................................................................5 

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................5 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 96 Filed 03/22/11 Page 2 of 9
ii 

INDEX OF CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES

Rules and Regulations

Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b) ..........................................................................................................................5

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 96 Filed 03/22/11 Page 3 of 9
INTRODUCTION

 For the reasons more fully stated in Frederick Weidinger’s Motion to Compel Shafi to 

Comply with the Court’s December 17, 2010 Order, Braintech joins in and concurs in Mr. 

Weidinger’s Motion. There is no dispute that the Court ordered Shafi to produce the 

Advenovation source code for inspection. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, Braintech will not 

repeat facts or duplicate arguments contained in Mr. Weidinger’s brief. Braintech seeks only to 

supply some additional facts regarding its actions to obtain information regarding 

Advenovation’s activities. 

 Contrary to the March 8, 2011 email from Shafi’s counsel to Mr. Weidinger’s counsel 

(Ex. 9 to Weidinger Motion), the issue of Shafi’s use of Shafi Inc. products and services in his 

Advenovation business was raised at Shafi’s first deposition. Any representation by Shafi that 

the issue was not raised until the last day of discovery is simply false. 

BRAINTECH AND WEIDINGER CONSISTENTLY PURSUED INFORMATION 

REGARDING SHAFI’S ADVENOVATION ACTIVITIES AND HIS USE OF 

RELIABOT SOURCE CODE BUT SHAFI STONEWALLED THE INQUIRIES

 Beginning with his first deposition on July 29, 2010, Shafi was asked to provide 

information about the nature of Advenovation’s business and his involvement in Advenovation 

(Ex. A; Shafi at 13-17). Shafi’s answers were vague and evasive, but he admitted that the 

Advenovation product and the Reliabot product “may be construed as similar...” and have 

“similar functionality” (Ex. A; Shafi at 18). When asked how the products were different, Shafi 

testified that the product used by Advenovation has a different name and that Reliabot has many, 

many features in it (Ex. A; Shafi at 18, 23). Shafi dodged the question of how he could have 

developed an entirely new source code or software materials at Advenovation within months of 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 96 Filed 03/22/11 Page 4 of 9
2 

the termination of his employment by Braintech when it took him years to develop the Reliabot 

source code (Ex. A; Shafi at 22). 

 Shafi’s deposition was not completed on July 29. As the Court may recall, Shafi claimed 

to be unavailable the entire month of August for the continuation of his deposition. Additionally, 

Shafi refused to be deposed in September 2010 at the conclusion of the deposition of Mr. 

Weidinger as the parties had agreed, and Braintech and Weidinger had to obtain an order from 

the Court to complete the deposition. As a result, Shafi’s deposition was not completed until 

October 22, 2010, just 7 days before the discovery cut-off. 

 During his October 22 deposition, Shafi admitted that David Dechow, President of 

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

Shafi sold to Braintech but now claims was stolen from him. (Ex.A; 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.A; 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.A; Shafi at 421-425). In fact, Mr. Shafi is 

using Reliabot accolades on his Advenovation website for the purpose of promoting the product 

that he now claims bears no resemblance to the Reliabot product (Ex.A; Shafi at 426, 430-432). 

 Within a week of Shafi’s deposition in which he admitted that Advenovation had sold 

software products to Braintech’s former customers, Braintech served discovery requests on Shafi 

and served subpoenas on Advenovation and Aptura Machine Services. Shafi filed a Motion for 

Protective Order and a Motion to Quash the subpoenas. 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 96 Filed 03/22/11 Page 5 of 9
3 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MORGAN ORDERED SHAFI TO PRODUCE 

THE SOURCE CODE IN A FORENSIC ENVIRONMENT AND TO 

SUPPLEMENT HIS INITIAL DISCLOSURES REGARDING DAMAGES

 On December 17, 2010, during the hearing on Braintech’s motions, counsel for Shafi 

agreed to produce the source code for inspection, and Magistrate Judge Morgan ordered the 

source codes to be produced in an appropriate forensic environment, subject to a protocol to be 

agreed upon between counsel (Weidinger Ex. 2; Tr. at 24). Shafi’s counsel now refuses to 

discuss the protocol and insists upon production of the source code at his office which was 

specifically rejected by Magistrate Judge Morgan during the hearing. 

BRAINTECH PROMPTLY ORDERED THE TRANSCRIPT 

OF THE DECEMBER 17, 2010 HEARING BUT THE COURT REPORTER 

DID NOT COMPLETE THE TRANSCRIPT UNTIL FEBRUARY 13, 2011

 On December 27, 2010, Braintech ordered a transcript of the December 17, 2010 hearing. 

Typically, turnaround time for a hearing transcript is 10-14 days. Nevertheless, Braintech was 

informed that the transcript would not be ready until January 31 (Ex. B; Court reporter email 

exchange). On January 31, 2011, Braintech was informed that the court reporter would be unable 

to meet the January 31, 2011 deadline because of an illness (Ex. B; Court reporter email 

exchange). The transcript was completed and forwarded to counsel for Braintech on February 13, 

2011. 

SHAFI DELAYED AMENDING HIS INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND RENEGED ON 

REPRESENTATIONS HIS COUNSEL MADE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE MORGAN 

 During the December 17, 2010 hearing, counsel for Shafi represented to Magistrate Judge 

Morgan that he was not seeking damages for loss of reputation. This was significant because 

Shafi’s Initial Required Disclosures identified several categories of damages, including damages 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 96 Filed 03/22/11 Page 6 of 9
4 

for lost opportunity and damage to reputation (Ex. C; Shafi Disclosures). Based on this 

representation, Magistrate Judge Morgan granted Shafi’s Motion for Protective Order and 

Motion to Quash Subpoenas which sought information about Shafi’s alleged damages. Instead, 

Magistrate Judge Morgan ordered Shafi to supplement his initial disclosures regarding damages. 

 Shafi did not amend his initial disclosures until February 23, 2011. (Weidinger Ex. 3; 

Murphy 2/23/11 email) And, sure enough, contrary to his representation to Magistrate Judge 

Morgan, Shafi still seeks damages for lost opportunity and damage to reputation (Ex. D; Shafi’s 

Amended Initial Disclosures). The type of claims and damages sought by Shafi greatly weighed 

on Braintech’s decision to retain an expert to examine the source codes. Whether Adil Shafi is 

still using and benefitting from the corporate property he claims was stolen from him is 

undoubtedly relevant to his claims for conversion and unjust enrichment and to his alleged 

damages for lost opportunity and damage to reputation. 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. Shafi’s current refusal to produce the source codes in a manner that will allow for a 

meaningful examination of the two products simply continues Shafi’s pattern of obstructing 

discovery in this case. 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 96 Filed 03/22/11 Page 7 of 9
5 

SHAFI ADMITTED HE DOES NOT HAVE 

THE EXPERTISE TO EVALUATE SOURCE CODE

 Finally, during his deposition, Shafi admitted that he does not have the expertise to 

compare the source code of the Advenovation and Reliabot products to determine whether the 

Advenovation product was derived from Reliabot source code or whether the two products are 

similar. (Ex.A; Shafi at 422-423). That he now purports to impose his opinion about the proper 

procedure for a forensic examination of the source code is curious to say the least. 

Understandably, Shafi has not challenged the expertise of Dr. Martens, nor has he identified any 

objections to the protocol presented by Braintech and Mr. Weidinger nor could he because, 

admittedly, he does not have the expertise to do so. 

CONCLUSION

 Accordingly, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b), Braintech joins in Mr. Weidinger’s Motion 

to Compel and respectfully requests that the Court compel Shafi to comply with the December 

17, 2010 Order. 

 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 

March 22, 2011 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 96 Filed 03/22/11 Page 8 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on March 22, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing paper 

(Braintech’s Brief In Support Of Frederick Weidinger’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b) Motion To Compel 

Counter-Plaintiff Adil Shafi To Produce Certain Source Code Required By The Court’s 

December 17, 2010 Order) 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 96 Filed 03/22/11 Page 9 of 9