Exhibit A — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 75.1)

Summary

Exhibit A is a printout of an email exchange between opposing counsel, filed on the docket as Dkt. 75.1 in the Agent Fee Litigation. The top message, sent July 7, 2020 by Ramsey Prather to Bill Cash, states that he will not agree to include the language Cash proposed in Synovus' motion for leave to file a reply brief, asks whether Cash consents without condition given a hearing that Thursday, and states that Synovus will not withdraw its motion to terminate. The quoted earlier message of the same day sets out Sport & Wheat's position: it consents to a reply limited to whether Synovus can be obligated to pay Sport & Wheat's attorney fees on the motion, and not to a reply raising new issues. It also offers to withdraw the fee request if the motion is withdrawn entirely by joint filing, and refers to a possible future motion to compel and to Rule 30(c).

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Bill Cash

From:                              Ramsey Prather <Ramsey@butlerwooten.com>
Sent:                              Tuesday, July 7, 2020 11:39
To:                                Bill Cash
Cc:                                Pam Wirt (pcwirt@wirtlawfirm.com); John Wirt (jwirt@wirtlawfirm.com); Jim Butler;
                                   'Philip Bates'; Nathanson, Paul J.; Haynes, Antonio M.; Kim McCallister
Subject:                           RE: Sport & Wheat's position on motion



                                                  CAUTION: This email
                                                  message is EXTERNAL.
Mr. Cash:

Thank you for your email. Obviously, I’m not going to agree to include the divisive language in your email immediately
below in Synovus’ motion for leave to file a reply brief. Please promptly let me know whether or not you consent to
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a reply brief without condition. Given the hearing on Thursday, time is of the essence.

Also, Synovus will not be withdrawing its motion to terminate.

Ramsey Prather




From: Bill Cash [mailto:bcash@levinlaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 12:13 PM
To: Ramsey Prather <Ramsey@butlerwooten.com>
Cc: Pam Wirt (pcwirt@wirtlawfirm.com) <pcwirt@wirtlawfirm.com>; John Wirt (jwirt@wirtlawfirm.com)
<jwirt@wirtlawfirm.com>
Subject: Sport & Wheat's position on motion

Ramsey,

I appreciated the call.

Here’s our position on your motion for leave to reply. I would appreciate if you would just
cut and paste this.

        Sport & Wheat stated as follows: It consents to Synovus filing a reply, so long as the
        reply is limited to just the issue of whether Synovus can be obligated to pay Sport &
        Wheat’s attorney fees in connection with this motion. Sport & Wheat does not
        consent to a reply that raises new issues, injects irrelevant material, or is
        inflammatory.

You mentioned that in developing your reply brief, you are unsure how it’s going to go. If
you decide there are other issues you think you need to reply on, then call me back and I’ll
see if I can’t consent to that as well.
                                                              1
Regarding our other offer: We maintain that there was no need to file this motion in the
first place; we told you that we were going to defer seeking the rest of the 30(b)(6) till
later, and maybe never. One of your colleagues then wrote that e-mail about “we decline to
engage further with you in this regard” (or whatever it said). Nevertheless, we reiterate:
there was no point to this motion. So: If you want to withdraw the motion entirely, and if
the Court then cancels the hearing and does not rule on the motion, then we’ll withdraw
our request for fees.

We will insist, however, that both sides approve the filing that withdraws the motion—it
should be a joint filing—and it should state that the motion was amicably resolved
between the parties with the express intent to avoid a ruling and avoid sanctions on either
side.

We would expect that you will meet and confer with us in good faith again in the future,
should the court reopen discovery, about having a new deposition. And if we decide to
seek that deposition and you don’t agree to it, then we’ll be filing a motion to compel and
we may well have to make the same arguments about Rule 30(c) that we did here. We may
well have to seek fees at that point and so this offer is contingent on these understandings.
I hope we don’t fight over fees, and if it comes to that, you can quote me.

If you don’t want to take your motion down, that is fine too; just know that at the hearing,
we will be telling the court that we made this offer today and you declined it.

I will reiterate yet again that I think there is a possibility of good lawyers cutting out the
nonsense and being polite with each other. We can disagree about our clients and still
walk out of this case as friends—I enjoy my defense friends. And we will see you in other
jurisdictions really soon, so it would not kill us to get back on track. I am heartened to hear
the same sentiment from you in our call.


Bill Cash III
Shareholder

Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor, P.A.
316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600, Pensacola, Florida 32502
Phone: 850-435-7059
www.levinlaw.com




                                                            2


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flnd.190491.75.1.pdf

Size

1,003,479 bytes

SHA-256

16182d12497f48c9c1c6d79cb334f63e3ffb2d2d4cb82f69ab8927f961f70fd4

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flnd.190491.75.1.pdf

Original

No public link identified.