-2-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

NETSPHERE, INC., §

MANILA INDUSTRIES, INC., and §

MUNISH KRISHAN, §

Plaintiffs. §

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE: EXPEDITED MOTION TO COMPEL

PETER VOGEL TO PRODUCE RECORDS OF TWO E-MAILS

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROYAL FURGESON:

COMES NOW JEFF BARON, and moves this Court to grant leave to file the

following expedited motion to compel Peter Vogel to produce records of two e-mails.

The records have been subpoenaed from the receiver, but he has refused to produce

them. (See Exhibit A).

A. BACKGROUND

(1) had directed Jeff first on March 30, 2010 to call the phone conference to be held on

-3-

April 1st, and then (2) again on April 1st directed Jeff to call a new number for the

conference.

The receiver is an official of the Court. Accordingly, a receiver who makes

false representations to the Court has lost all legitimacy as a receiver. Further, if a

receiver falsely represents the facts in carrying out the official business of the Court,

the integrity of the Court is itself threatened. The matter is relevant and serious.

At this point the receiver has been confronted with the evidence against them,

and has had the full opportunity to investigate and formulate their response. The

actually happened” was that on April 1st a conference number was circulated and Mr.

Baron was “inadvertently included”. The timing clearly does not line up. Someone is

not telling the truth– if the e-mails are authentic, the receiver has been caught in a

pattern of false representations to this Court.

Notably, there is no confusion over the date of the first e-mail evidence. The e-

mail clearly states it was received March 30th. The receiver has been requested to

produce the e-mail log for the dalexht2 Gardere e-mail server (that appears in the e-

mail’s “fingerprint”) for March 30, 2011. The receiver has refused.

-4-

The receiver has steadfastly denied the timing of the first e-mail and steadfastly

denies sending the second email. Yet, the receiver offers no credible explanation for the

e-mail evidence. When asked to produce copies of the two e-mails and the server logs

for the two dates on which the e-mails were sent, the receiver has refused.

by itself.’ (the receiver’s own explanation).

Peter Vogel and his firm put themselves forth as experts on computer

technology, the forensics of electronic discovery, and the like. Yet, the best explanation

the receiver has to offer for the email evidence proving that they misrepresented the

truth to the Court is that it is a “Mystery”. Anyone who has used a computer

understands that there is a sent mail box. The receiver noticeably failed to mention

whether they have a copy of the ‘mystery’ e-mail in their sent mail box.

The receiver clearly did not understand that their E-mail has fingerprints.

Specifically, the receiver’s e-mail has both a thread index, <AcvvChO6Zczmw3xlQPK

2Qv1TKFaqkABgJY8g> and <AcvvChPDNJD+wBrwQiGLidYCi7IzIg==> and a

-5-

b2.Gardere.com> and <B984C59883B3594BA31144D0472BDF1C8024B94E@dalexmb2.

Gardere.com>.

These unique numbers will locate the e-mail within 10 seconds of effort by doing

a search for them in the receiver's e-mail. These unique numbers will also be found in

no way out of the falsehoods they have put forth to this Court.

These are the two unique fingerprints of the two e-mails in question. These can be

found easily by the date of the e-mails, or by a search based on the ID numbers. The

receiver has refused to produce the e-mails.

The receiver was also requested to produce the e-mail threads to which those

emails belong. Those threads will show the exact sequencing of the e-mails within the

thread. Each thread covers the same topic, so that no information beyond the subject of

-6-

the e-mails and proof of their authenticity would be disclosed by such a production. The

receiver has refused to produce the e-mail threads.

The receiver was requested to produce the logs of its e-mail sending program,

which tracks by Message-ID who sent each email, when, to whom (what IP and server)

establish the authenticity of any particular e-mail if that e-mail is also available. The

log file is readily available and can be copied by a server technician in less than three

minutes of effort. The receiver has refused to produce the e-mail server logs.

set up Mr. Baron to join the conference call, and he did so as part of a pattern of

intimidation. The receiver used the words "scare" and "intimidate" almost a dozen times

in their motion to discredit Mr. Baron and his counsel. The e-mail evidence is significant

because it proves (1) Mr. Baron was set up by the receiver—the call was placed because

the receiver made repeated efforts for Mr. Baron to place the call and (2) the receiver has

made repeated untrue representations to this Court. When confronted with the hard

evidence, the best the receiver could come up with is an entrenched denial. The

-7-

receiver implies that the email evidence is fake. When requested to produce the e-mail,

the logs of the specific e-mail fingerprints, etc., the receiver has stonewalled and refused

to produce.

This incident is part of a pattern of fabrication on the part of the receiver. For

Here, once again, the receiver has continued that same pattern: fabrication

combined with the characterization of facts stretched beyond the point of legitimacy.

This includes also the following:

sent to Ms. Schurig clarifying that Mr. Baron was not authorizing waiver of

attorney-client privilege. The text of the e-mail sent by Ms. Schurig, does not

match the recitations of the receiver of ‘threat and intimidation’.

not to provide the Receiver with privileged information”. The evidence

discredits the receiver’s representation. Jeff never told anyone not to provide

has ever done was, through his counsel, to state his position on the key issues– in

-8-

response to written requests inquiring as to his position – and to notify those

holding his privilege that he was not authorizing waiver of that privilege. Not

March 30, 2011 and April 1, 2011, specifically the logs of

dalexht1.Gardere.com and dalexmb2.Gardere.com for April 1 and

dalexht2.Gardere.com for March 30.

email Thread Indexes <AcvvCh06Zczmw3xlQPK2Qv1TKFaqk

ABgJY8g> or <AcvvChPDNJD+wBrwQiGLidYCi7IzIg==>;

-9-

and

a. <B984C59883B3594BA31144D0472BDF1C8024B9B5@dale

xmb2.Gardere.com> or

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gary N. Schepps

COURT ORDERED TRIAL

COUNSEL FOR JEFF BARON

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that this brief was served this day on all parties who receive

notification through the Court’s electronic filing system.

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

This is to certify that I was unable to obtain the receiver’s agreement to produce

the requested documents.

CERTIFIED BY: /s/ Gary N. Schepps