SpamSuite.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
E360INSIGHT, LLC,
an Illinois Limited Liability Company, and
DAVID LINHARDT, an individual
Plaintiffs,

V.

THE SPAMHAUS PROJECT,
a company limited by guarantee and
organized under the laws of England, aka
THE SPAMHAUS PROJECT LTD,
Defendant.

MOTION FOR A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiffs, e360lnsight, LLC and David Linhardt (collectively Plaintiffs), by and through their attorneys, Synergy Law Group, LLC, respectfully requests that this Court issue a rule to show cause why Defendant The Spamhaus Project, aka The Spamhaus Project Ltd., (Defendant) should not be held in contempt for its failure to comply with the citation to discover assets served on Defendant on October 23, 2006. In support of this motion Plaintiffs state:

1. On September 13, 2006, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, a judgment in the amount of $11,716,971.05 was entered in favor of the Plaintiffs and against Defendant in Case No. 06 CV 3958 and a balance of $11,716,971.05 remains unsatisfied. A copy of the Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2. On October 23, 2006, Plaintiffs caused to be served a citation to discover assets directed to Defendant. A copy of the initial citation to discover assets is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

3. Included in the initial citation to discover assets, the Plaintiffs sought "Any and all information regarding all bank, money or other financial accounts, including but not limited to bank statements and check ledgers, in the name of The Spamhaus Project, LTD, and/or its officers and/or directors, along with such information for any of The Spamhaus Project, LTD's subsidiaries, successors or other related entities; for all such information, provide the name of the accounts, account numbers, amount of money currently held in each account and monthly statements for each said account for the past three years" ¶6 of Rider attached to Exhibit B.

4. Defendant filed a response to the initial citation to discover assets on November 10, 2006. A copy of Defendant's response to the citation to discover assets is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

5. For its response to ¶6 of the rider attached to the citation, Defendant through its counsel, stated in pertinent part that "Spamhaus has no subsidiaries, successors, or other related entities as that term is understood." See Exhibit C (emphasis added).

6. Defendant also submitted an affidavit from Steve Linford where Mr. Linford attested to the fact that "The Spamhaus Project, LTD has no subsidiaries, successors, parent companies, or other such related entities. See ¶6 of affidavit of Mr. Linford attached hereto as Exhibit D. (Unlike counsel for Defendant, Mr. Linford did not use any qualifications to his statement).

7. Through the use of subpoenas, Plaintiffs have discovered the existence of a fee generating Spamhaus entity known as Spamhaus Technology, LTD.

8. On information and belief, Spamhaus Technology, LTD is wholly owned by Mr. Linford. See Exhibit E.

9. The bills submitted to clients of Spamhaus Technology, LTD reference The Spamhaus Project explicitly and use a contact e-mail address with the same domain as The Spamhaus Project. See Exhibit F & G.

10. Spamhaus Technology, LTD has payments remitted to the same address as The Spamhaus Project. See Exhibit F & G.

11. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that Spamhaus Technology, LTD is at least a "related entity" as that term is used in the citation to discover assets.

12. Defendant and Defendant's counsel wrongfully withheld the existence of Spamhaus Technology, LTD from Plaintiffs.

13. Pursuant to Local Rule 37.1, counsel for Plaintiffs e-mailed counsel for Defendant on March 13, 2007 in an attempt to resolve this matter without the need for court intervention. Counsel for The Spamhaus Project responded by stating that Spambaus Technology is not owned by The Spamhaus Project. Counsel's response is inadequate. The citation sought information concerning other related entities, not just entities owned by The Spamhaus Project.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, e360insight, LLC and David Linhardt, respectfully request that this Court enter an Order for a Rule to Show Cause as to why Defendant should not be held in contempt for failure to fully respond to Plaintiffs' citation to discover assets and sanction them in the amount of Plaintiffs' reasonable attorney's fees in connection with bringing this motion.

Respectfully submitted,
E360Insight, LLC. and David Linhardt
By: /s/ Daniel J. Peters
One of Their Attorneys
Bartly J. Loethen
Joseph L. Kish
Daniel J. Peters
Synergy Law Group, LLC
730 West Randolph, 6th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60661
Telephone: (312) 454-0015
Facsimile: (312) 454-0261

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Motion for a Rule to Show Cause was served upon the attorneys listed below electronically through CM/ECF on March 15, 2007.
Carrie A Fino cfino@jenner.com
Stephen M Geissler sgeissler@jenner.com,
Joseph L Kish jkish@synergylawgroup.com
Craig Christopher Martin cmartin@jenner.com, docketing@jenner.com
Matthew M. Neumeier mneumeier@jenner.com
By: /s/ Daniel J. Peters
One of Their Attorneys
Bartly J. Loethen
Joseph L. Kish
Daniel J. Peters
Synergy Law Group, LLC
730 West Randolph, 6th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60661
Telephone: (312) 454-0015
Facsimile: (312) 454-0261