-2-IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASDALLAS DIVISIONNETSPHERE, INC., §MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC., and §MUNISH KRISHAN, §Plaintiffs. §§ Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-Fv. §§JEFFREY BARON, and §ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY, §Defendants. §MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE: MOTION TO STRIKE RECEIVER’SERRONEOUS “NOTICE” OF ALLEGEDLY ERRONEOUS STATEMENTREGARDING EVIDENCE OF FORMER ATTORNEY CLAIMS [DOC 571]TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROYAL FURGESON:COMES NOW JEFF BARON, and moves this Court to grant leave to filethe following motion to strike the receiver’s “Notice” [Doc 571].1. Once again the receiver is fabricating a falsely alleged ‘wrong’ on the partof Jeff Baron and his counsel. The receiver’s “notice” falls well outside any rule ofprocedure, and is at best materially misleading. The receiver has created a blizzard ofbilling, and the receiver’s “notice” is just one more example.2. On March 17, 2011 the receiver filed their motion for an order approvingtheir “assessment” of ‘claims’ [Doc 396].3. That motion lists Exhibits such as V and W. Exhibit W is listed as theReyna Hinds & Crandall affidavit. Exhibit V and Exhibit W were withheld by thereceiver from the undersigned counsel. (Notably, the undersigned counsel formallyUSCA5 1507-3-requested to be provided very specific material from each attorney. The receiver firstpromised to produce the material and then refused to produce).4. Exhibit W, the Reyna Hinds & Crandall material, was not provided to theundersigned counsel in the hard copies the receiver delivered, and was not provided inthe CD the receiver delivered, and was not received by the undersigned in any pre-hearing email from the receiver.5. The absence of the affidavit listed in the receiver’s motion on theassessments was noted of the in the post trial briefing, noting simply that the “Receiverdid not produce affidavit for the undersigned counsel to review.”6. If the receiver was concerned about the substance—and not abouttrying to ‘set up’ and incident and generate more and more paperwork and billings,the receiver could have simply informed counsel that there was no information in ExhibitW that was not subsequently provided via email. However, the receiver does not useemail communication to resolve issues. For the receiver emails are a tool of ‘advocacy’in which the receiver attempts to generate some ‘sound bite’ in which to file the email as‘proof’ of some wrongdoing. The receiver has repeatedly used cut-and-paste email bitsfrom counsel to attempt to show some alleged misdeed or another.7. The receiver represented in their March 17, 2011 motion that an Exhibit Whad been provided with respect to Reyna Hinds & Crandall. The receiver’srepresentation was not correct, and the material was not provided. It is clear thereceiver is aware of that when the filed their latest “NOTICE”. However, thereceiver failed to disclose that fact to the Court. Accordingly, instead of filing an agreedUSCA5 1508-4-letter or notice to clarify that the receiver did not provide the Exhibit W, but (acceptingthe receiver’s explanation), that Exhibit W contained nothing more than subsequent‘supplemental’ material, the receiver contrived a formal “Notice” attempting to paint apicture of some malfeasance on the part of Jeff or his counsel.8. The filing of this motion should not be necessary. Rule 5(b)(1) clearlyrequires service “must” be made on the attorney and not the party unless the court ordersotherwise. Rule 5(b)(2)(E) similarly clearly requires that service by electronic means isnot considered served under the rules if the serving party learns that it didn’t reach theperson to be served. The receiver was clearly informed of that, and the receiver’s“Notice” does not appear to be filed in good faith.9. The undersigned received the Crandall material only after the April 28,2011 hearing, based on the receiver’s subsequent e-mailings about it. The receiver wasfully aware of this prior to filing their “Notice”. The receiver also knows Jeff isrepresented by counsel. Notably, the undersigned has never looked to a client to providenotice from opposing counsel in an active litigation.WHEREFORE motion is made to strike the receiver’s “NOTICE” [Doc 571].Respectfully submitted,/s/ Gary N. ScheppsGary N. ScheppsTexas State Bar No. 00791608Drawer 670804 / Dallas, Texas 75367(214) 210-5940 / (214) 347-4031 faxE-mail: legal@schepps.netCOURT ORDERED TRIALCOUNSEL FOR JEFF BARONUSCA5 1509-5-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEThis is to certify that this document was served this day on all parties who receivenotification through the Court’s electronic filing system.CERTIFIED BY: /s/ Gary N. ScheppsGary N. ScheppsUSCA5 1510