Lawyers representing billionaire Elon Musk and Tesla are asking a U.S. district court judge to dismiss a motion seeking sanctions over their alleged conflicts of interest in a $258 billion lawsuit alleging Musk was involved in an illegal racketeering scheme related to the Dogecoin (DOGE) cryptocurrency.

In a July 6 filing, Musk and the Tesla team responded Motion for June 25 submit Written by Evan Spencer, who represented the plaintiffs in the Musk case.

In the filing, Spencer called the defendants’ attorney a “yes-man” and asked the judge to declare that the team representing Musk and Tesla had a conflict of interest. “In this case, defense attorneys are representing both defendants, and their true allegiance is limited to Elon Musk,” the complaint reads.

RELATED: Elon Musk Accuses Mark Zuckerberg of Cheating: Twitter vs. Threads

The legal team representing Musk and Tesla was unabashed in its response, calling Spencer’s motion “unsubstantiated” and “frivolous” three times in the catalog alone.

According to representatives of the defendants, there is no conflict of interest under New York law. They claim that the law requires legal teams to represent executives of the companies they represent, except in situations where the two entities are legal opponents. According to the July 6 filing:

“Spencer’s motion (…) is a gross abuse of process, yet another figment of Spencer’s long list of such pleadings, a waste of this Court’s time, and an insult to the undersigned, Honorable members of the court. Bar of this court, recently admitted guilty by the court.”

The filing also responds to allegations made by Spencer that Tesla’s legal team leaked a letter to the New York Post that allegedly discredited Spencer for his indiscretions with Rule 11. Essentially, the letter accused Spencer of having a history of filing frivolous motions to delay court proceedings.

Spencer filed a motion asking the defense team to grant the charge that the conduct polluted the jury.

Attorneys for Musk and Tesla disputed the charge that they leaked the letter, and in the filing disputed Spencer’s assertion that the letter was introduced to a jury through public records and via a June 25 motion. , presenting the letter to the jury.