Amended MOTION to File Second Motion to Supplemen Record with Newly Discovered Evidence

 
-2-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
DALLAS DIVISION 
 
NETSPHERE, INC.,       § 
MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC., and   § 
MUNISH KRISHAN,       §  
Plaintiffs.                     § 
  § Civil Action No. 3-09CV0988-F 
  v.   §   
  §  
JEFFREY BARON, and      §   
ONDOVA LIMITED COMPANY,    § 
  Defendants.          § 
 
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE: SECOND MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT 
RECORD WITH NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE  
 
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROYAL FURGESON: 
COMES  NOW  JEFF  BARON,  and  moves  this  Court  to  grant  leave  to  file 
the  following  motion  to  supplement  the  record  with  the  evidence  attached  as 
Exhibit A: 
A. WHAT THIS EVIDENCE PROVES 
EXHIBIT A - THE RECEIVER’S EMAIL 
This email: 
(1)  Establishes  that  the  receiver  is  not  an  impartial  and  indifferent  person. 
The email proves the receiver is clearly an advocate and not acting with 
impartiality,  and  has  therefore  breached  their  duty  as  receiver  and  their 
assessment  is  invalid  because  it  is  an  assessment  of  an  advocate.    See 
Texas  American  Bancshares,  Inc.  v.  Clarke,  740  F.Supp.  1243,  1253 
USCA5 1497

 
-3-
(N.D.Tex.1990) (receiver “owes a duty of strict impartiality”). 
(2)  The  email  also  establishes  that  receiver’s  assessment  has  not  been 
reasonable, nor unbiased.  For example:  
a.  The email proves that to the receiver’s assessment, evidence 
that  Mr.  Lyon’s  billing  rate  was  $40.00  per  hour  is  “not 
evidence” and does change the receiver’s assessment nor (to 
the  receiver’s  mind)  controvert  Mr.  Lyon’s  claim  for 
payment at the rate of $300.00.  The fact that Mr. Lyon was 
paid  at  $40.00  per  hour,  and  the  evidence  proves  he  was 
billing at that rate, to the receiver is “no evidence”.   
Notably,  the  evidence  the  receiver  views  (and  argues)  as 
“no  evidence”  clearly  and  unambiguously  establishes  that 
even  after  September  2010,  Lyon  was  clearly  charging 
$40.00 per hour, not the $300.00 he is now claiming.  In this 
evidence  Mr.  Lyon,  in  his own words,  states  that his  rate is 
$40  per  hour.    He  notes  that  allows  ‘more  bang  for  the 
buck’.      Yet,  to  the  receiver’s  view,  this  is  not  evidence 
which  controverts  Mr.  Lyon’s  ‘claim’  that  his  rate  was 
$300.00 per hour, and is therefore due over $75,000.00. 
USCA5 1498

 
-4-
b.  The receiver views the proof that after the global settlement 
was  reached  Taylor  made  no  claim  to  any  additional 
‘contingency’  fee  due,  and  instead  stated  expressly  “We'll 
probably  have  a  very  small  bill  that  will  go  out  at  the 
first  of  September,  but  that  should  be  the  last  one”  as 
“no  evidence”  to  controvert  Taylor’s  current  claim  that  he 
has a near $80,000.00 past due fee.  
 
B. WHY THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT RAISED EARLIER 
This material was in the exclusive possession of the receiver.   
C. RELIEF REQUESTED 
Jeff  Baron  requests  the  Court  to  consider  this  evidence  with  respect  to  the 
Court’s consideration of the receiver’s motions.   
Jointly  and  in  the  alternative  Jeff  Baron  requests  this  Court  to  remove  the 
receiver  as  biased,  and  if  a  receiver  is  to  be  appointed,  appoint  an  unbiased  and 
impartial receiver who is not an active advocate against Jeff.  
Respectfully submitted, 
 
  /s/ Gary N. Schepps 
Gary N. Schepps 
Texas State Bar No. 00791608 
Drawer 670804 
Dallas, Texas 75367 
(214) 210-5940 - Telephone 
(214) 347-4031 - Facsimile 
USCA5 1499

 
-5-
E-mail: legal@schepps.net 
COURT ORDERED TRIAL 
COUNSEL FOR JEFF BARON 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
This is to certify that this document was served this day on all parties who receive 
notification through the Court’s electronic filing system. 
CERTIFIED BY:  /s/ Gary N. Schepps 
            Gary N. Schepps 
USCA5 1500